Posts Tagged ‘dominance’

A Woman’s Blessing and this issue of Submission.

August 15, 2009

Talking to a good friend this morning who just went through a major surgery, we were exchanging garden observations.  Her zucchinis and cukes are in overabundance and I have none.  We both have tomatoes but none too red.  The point of this is just that we both, being women, enjoy the gardening and all the issues of keeping our families fed, our houses bearable, and the summer canning and usage of good things from the garden.

We both went through this issue of “submission” and what it means for women.  At least women either interested or influenced in some way by D/s.  We found a lot of holes in the doing, and especially from the lips of men.

Distilled down, we thought it an  issue that could be good and very bad.  It could be something that cleaved us more to our husbands or it could curtail our creativity, our growth.  I’ve seen it both ways.  Some men are so insecure, especially from what I have seen in the hard-line ‘Gorean’ species,  (which is why when you base your philosophies on fairy tales, you could end up counting angels on the heads of pins…) and in the bdsm scene a lot….well, somethings are just stupid.

My friend and I have talked a lot about these issues:  what defines us as women?  Well, it’s in the day to day…and we don’t need no stinky bdsm philosophies to ‘tell’ us what we are.

I am blessed to have the freedom to work at home.   My dear Husband does not need me to work outside the home to supplant the home finances, he thinks in his German- Catholic upbringing that women should be ‘allowed’ to keep the home fires burning.

To that end I think my responsibilities are to constantly feed that home fire.  I do teach belly dancing, and that doesn’t bring in much money, but he has great hope I will become that elusive “famous author” someday  and make money this way.

Hah!  He knows nothing of publishing, literary fiction, what is happening in the publishing world especially right now, and he doesn’t know the competition.  But he loves to read my novels and stories and he foots all the bills for  publishing and promotion.   He thinks that is part of his role, to be supportive in all my endeavors.

He’s a wonderful man.  Secure in himself, with what he already is, he is a wonderful example of a decent and compassionate man.  His wiring is good.

After a recent period of some strange influences, we have come to a balance within our marriage.  I have all the freedoms to do as I want and this makes it imperative that I expend this freedom in the best ways possible. I know now what it is that makes me  happy and it’s a simple connection with what makes this marriage and family run in the best ways.  Or something like that.

Today I have been repairing linens, cutting out the pieces for a white, cotton kimono to wear as I dash from the shower in the garden to the house. I’ve made 4 pints of grape  and 10 pints of kudzu jelly.  I am planning on making loaves of french bread for this evening to go with the basil pesto.  I’ve collected eggs from our hens and checked on the growth of the tomatoes and grapes (this last is rather screwy. First year for grapes so we don’t know what we should be looking for, but they are tiny purple/black things and very bitter.)

These chores, which are really blessings, I account for the responsibilities I have to this marriage and family.  I don’t know where these issues of submission come in anymore, because what we have found out is this:

There is a balance within the ‘nature’ of both the man and woman in this house.  We are settled into the natural routine that pleases us both and gives the greatest amount of comfort and security.  If this is submission, I  embrace it, but it certainly is not what I have observed in many cases.

Yes, yes, I know about this issue of ‘power-exchange’.  We are ignoring it.  Or at least tending to it.  We both know our roles and there is peace.

As to his ‘dominance’, it’s a natural flow from his character as a man. He knows his duties and leads by doing.  He is a fine example to our only child, a son.  He has no rattling ego to dodge or to fear.  He is a naturally manly man whose only bad habit is to goose the wife when she is bent over the oven with hot things in her hands.

Overall, blessings to stroke and to cherish.

KUDZU JELLY… a Southern jelly.   That weed from Japan.

4 cups of kudzu flowers (those purple/lavender blooms that look like wisteria blooms under the leaves)

4 cups of boiling water.

Seep overnight in the fridge.  A gray liquid results when you strain the flowers from the bowl.  Throw flowers away, and keep the gray liquid.  Heat up in high pan and put 1 lemon of fresh juice into the gray liquid and it become purple!  Boil for a few minutes with 6 cups of sugar and throw in one packet of liquid pectin (or powdered).

Boil for one minute.

IF you boil your lids for a few minutes, you can usually decant the jelly into the CLEAN glass jars and screw down lids, turn over for 30 minutes or so, and you don’t have to seal in a pressure cooker.

Kudzu jelly is a beautiful clear jelly that tastes like a cross of grape and strawberry.  Keeps forever, but we give them away as holiday gifts.

Lady Nyo

Athene’s Comments on “Natural Order”

December 29, 2008

From time to time, questions are raised on different issues that have interest to many readers. If I don’t have answers, or can strongly support an argument, I will direct readers to various websites for what they can find in the answers of others.

I have been discussing this issue of “Natural Order” with Athene and others here, this “Gorean” concept, and as I am NOT a scientist, and luckily Athene IS, I asked her to read other sites of writers that I know who do either hold to this Gorean concept of Natural Order, or can explain it. Hence, she gone to various sites and is reading. Her answer is below, as she wrote to me in private email.

Lady Nyo

Another blogger’s views on this submission issue:

“I believe that a female’s submissive nature is greatly determined by genetics. IOW – it is encoded into the very cells of her body through many years of evolution […] However, I do believe that the natural tendency to submit is wired in from birth.”

(from Mackenzie Cross’ blog:

Athene’s response:

Evolution would not favor an organism (male or female) to be completely submissive to the other sex. Evolution is regarding the change of allele frequencies from one generation to the next, and these alleles are usually favored through time because they confer advantageous traits to the organism in question. If there are genetic determinations for behavior (and the ‘nature versus nurture’ debate is still quite huge), only in rare instances would submissive behavior [as he describes] be favored as advantageous for the survival of the species.

Females exercise sexual selection in choosing the best partner for bearing progeny. Take, for example, peafowls/peacocks. The female will choose the male with the most colorful tail, the longest train. To her, this is the healthiest male, and the one that will ensure that her children will survive to pass on their genetic material to another generation (biologically speaking the males with the longest tail train are the healthiest ones because they have excess metabolic energy to cultivate a well groomed and presented tail, but I digress). She wouldn’t want to mate with a weak male that might potentially pass on genes that make for weak progeny.

If women should submit to males because women are genetically “wired” to be submissive, and that such behavior (1) is genetically based and (2) evolutionarily favored, then one wonders why and how the species survived all this time. Some ideas a natural order theory would have to take into account and explain would be:

Does this theory make a differentiation between strong evolutionarily fit males, or any male at all? How does this theory account for sexual selection in species?

In regards to evolution, females exercise sexual selection for this reason – they do not want offspring at a disadvantage for survival and reproduction; therefore, they will choose the male that, in their view, is the most successful and will pass on “good” genes to the progeny. Females will avoid males that they deem not successful.

In regards to a natural order theory, I see two approaches to roles of domination and submission for each sex:

1. There is universal male dominance over females (no exceptions).

Any male could make any female submit. However, if this occurred, our species might not have survived because those males who were evolutionarily unfit would be able to pass on their genes to progeny, creating potentially weakened unfit organisms who were unable to successfully compete with other species alive at the time (other Homo species). As a fledging species, way back then, this would have been disadvantageous, and most likely evolution would have selected against it swiftly and quickly. Perhaps today the world would be populated with Homo erectus.

This wouldn’t account for the behavior of rape. Evolutionary biologists and psychologists have published studies on rape and how it corresponds with evolution, and have concluded that the behavior of rape may be present in today’s society because it was one way for (presumably unfit) males to force a female to bear his progeny (ensuring HIS genes’ survival), because she wouldn’t do so on her own accord. So, for some males, this behavior actually was advantageous from an evolutionary view, which is how it survived through the years into today’s society (note: that doesn’t mean that rape is justified; it’s just an explanation of how that behavior might have developed in the first place).

This wouldn’t account for courtship rituals. The male bald eagle flies in complex patterns (dances) and sometimes will exchange fish with the female. The bowerbird builds a complex nest and decorates it to attract females. Fireflies will flash their lights in signature patterns that are unique to each male to attract females. Tarantulas will build competing webs to attract females.

Humans court too. We date. And some biologists say that the female orgasm is essentially a huge test of the male to see if he has the patience and communication skills required to bring her to a climax as well as himself. If he lacks this patience and cannot bring her to orgasm, she may not prefer him as a sexual partner (and potential father) in the future because she will prefer males who will be able to care for the offspring, and need patience and communication to do so successfully. If females are genetically hardwired to be submissive to males, if female submission to males is evolutionarily favored, why do so many species (including our own) engage in courtship rituals where the male has to win the affections of the female rather than just forcibly taking her (rape)?

Males court females because all the time and metabolic energy involved in producing eggs and raising young is a LOT compared to the metabolic energy it takes to produce sperm. It is in the best interests of females to choose males that will give their children the best advantage in life; therefore, males must convince females he is worth it genetically and hence, sexually.

Therefore, universal male dominance over females is highly unlikely to be a viable natural order position, and certainly not one favored by evolution. So, what is the other option?

2. There is non-universal / incomplete male dominance over females (exceptions).

To keep in line with evolutionary theory and sexual selection, you could say that only the evolutionarily fit males make females submit. But, if you subscribe to that thought process, then

(a) you concede that females do have the power to be selective in which partner they choose, and they may (and often do) disregard males that they deem to be not fit or successful (which seems at odds with natural order ideas) or

(b) you disregard the non-fit males completely and make no attempt

to explain sexual selection (but you can’t do that and expect to have a tenable position) or

(c) you reason that dominance/submission dynamics are based purely on strength, and that weak males (perhaps evolutionary unfit males) do not have the means to dominate females – but if you base it on strength without sex considerations, then you must concede that there are strong females who may be able to dominate and/or overpower males as well (which also seems at odds with natural order thoughts).

Therefore, non-universal / incomplete male domination over females is also not a viable position from a natural order viewpoint.

As it is highly unlikely that evolution would favor universal male dominance, and incomplete male dominance strays from natural order thinking, female submissiveness is more a social construct than a biological one, rooted in my favorite word, heteronormativity.

But, getting away from all this, let us say, just a hypothetical exercise, that female submissive behavior IS genetically biologically based, and let us say that it has been favored by evolution. If so, this is a valid reason for saying that females should submit to males in today’s society?

If evolution can be summed up in one word, that word would be change. Populations change, organisms and individuals change, allele frequencies change, and most important of all, environments change.

The most “fit” organism is one that is most successful at reproducing in the current environment; however, environments change. Food supplies change, carrying capacities change – even the weather may change. What may have been advantageous for survival at one time may no longer be advantageous anymore.

Think about sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia is a disease where the red blood cells are abnormally shaped (like sickles). People stricken with this disease have a life span of 42-48 years and are often afflicted with complications such as strokes, osteomyelitis, kidney acute papillary necrosis, pulmonary hypertension, and cholelithiasis and cholecystitis. It is due to a mutation, and it seems that evolution would have already selected against this mutation; however, while 2 copies of the mutation will make you diseased, 1 copy gives you resistance to malaria AND you won’t suffer from the disease as you need 2 copies to be affected. And of course, 0 copies of the mutation means you won’t have the disease, but you also won’t benefit from the malaria resistance either.

Before we had adequate control methods of water, pests, and sanitation, the environment was favorable for mosquito breeding and populations, so having 1 copy of this mutation was advantageous to survive from malaria. The mosquitoes would be the vector for the parasites, and the mosquitoes bred in standing water, and if there were dirty pools of standing water everywhere, malaria was easily spread from person to person. Having that 1 mutation was “good” – so those people with that one mutation survived and passed that mutation to their offspring, who also survived and passed it on to the next generation (and so on).

But, the environment has changed, and now we have better control for water (water sewage treatment plants, running water in pipes) and pests (spraying for mosquitoes) – not to mention anti-parasitic drugs and advanced medicine; therefore, the mutation that protects from malaria is no longer beneficial because the environment has changed and malaria is no longer an evolutionary pressure. Now, having that mutation may actually be a disadvantageous thing because if two parents with 1 mutation [each] have a child, there is a 25% chance that child will inherit both mutations (2 copies) and will suffer from the disease. Before, when the environment was different, it was worth taking that 25% chance because it was offset by the 50% chance that the child would get only 1 copy and be resistant to malaria.

So, the red blood cell mutation that used to be advantageous for survival is now a detriment because the environment changed, the evolutionary pressures changed.

If we apply this to our hypothetical gene that makes women submissive (let’s call it SUB-1), it works the same way. A long time ago, when human society was loosely organized (hunter/gatherer society) and mere survival was a challenge, it was advantageous to delegate positions, rely on others and work in groups to ensure survival (both group and individual survival). Food was an animal that needed to be stalked and hunted, or a plant that needed to be cultivated and grown. Water was a supply that needed to be obtained from a clean safe water source, and clothing and tools were things that needed to be made by hand after the supplies were gathered to make them. In this type of environment, it was more advantageous to delegate tasks within the social group so that all the survival needs could be met adequately: food, water, clothing, etc.

As males are usually the stronger of the sexes, it made the most sense for the males to hunt, defend, and oversee the tasks that today are regarded as traditionally masculine. On the flip side, females who would bear children also produced milk to nurse them, so it made more sense for them to stay at home and take care of the domestic tasks that are today regarded as traditionally feminine. It was advantageous for a female to “submit” to a male because in return, she would get food (meat) and protection – it would help her survive, and her children (and his children) survive.

However, the society and the environment we live in today are dramatically changed. We no longer have to go out hunting for food – anyone (male or female) just needs to go to a grocery store and pick up a package of chicken or beef and go bag their own vegetables and fruits. Clean water comes to us when we turn on the facets, and if it’s not clean enough then, we can always filter it with a Brita system. Clothes and tools can be bought at stores. Even protection is no longer something a female would need from a male partner with the development of laws and law enforcement agencies. Even the invention of guns would allow a female to defend herself without the need for a biologically stronger male defender. Our society has become more complex, and we have simplified living so that it is no longer a challenge to survive. With this changing society and environment, the necessity for a female to “submit” to a male is no longer a requirement (or even a recommendation) to be successful. She may choose to have a male partner and have a family, but the NEED to rely on him for survival is now negated. – the evolutionary pressures have changed.

Because such reliance is no longer necessary, our hypothetical SUB-1 gene no longer grants an advantage for survival. What might have been a genetic advantage THEN is NOW either neutral or detrimental. And thus, evolution may now either be indifferent to that gene, or it may select against it, respectively.

So saying, “Because SUB-1 was evolutionarily favored in the past to make women submissive, today, women should go back to being submissive and stop taking on traditionally male roles” is outdated, silly, and completely disregards evolutionary theory. That’s like saying, “In the ice age, the gene that made mammals grow a lot of fur to keep warm was favored; therefore, let’s embrace that gene today even though temperatures in the summer can be over 100 degrees F.”

So, no matter how you look at it (submissiveness as a social construct OR biologically based), being submissive in today’s society is a choice, not an imperative that evolution demands.

And, just for some more fun biology questions that natural order theory would have to account for:

If there are dominant/submissive behaviors that are biologically based and specific for the sexes, is it because they are X or Y linked? If so, if there is a female who displays dominance instead of submissiveness, is it because of X chromosome lyonization? ;o)



Lady Nyo: Athene gives a lot to chew upon with this excerpt. However, it is good to have this argument afloat. I am sure that others will respond to her view on evolutionary issues, and this can only be to the good. Thank you, Athene…for pushing these important issues front and center.

“Pain and Pleasure” a continuing discussion…

October 23, 2008

From a reader, Tessa. Her experiences as to this issue of pain and pleasure.


I met Chris several years ago in a BD/SM chat room. I believe I messaged him with something about his profile. We struck up a conversation and talked about S/M and other sexual topics.

He was intelligent and not a troll. I had to sign on to my computer the next night to look for him. He told me I was to refer to him as “Sir”. We chatted again and he started to explore my masochistic side. He was a turn on for me. I enjoyed his Dominance and it fed me to be more submissive to him when we spoke. Talking several weeks online led to phone discussions.

He turned me on, I was always in a high state of arousal when we talked. He knew how to make me feel things I never felt before. He talked to me, telling me what he would do to me if we met. It would include the cat –o- nine tales. Whips, and nipple clamps. Also, there were talks of butt plugs. He did not want to scar me, or go to an extreme of cutting or anything like that. It was merely pain for pleasure. He talked of spanking me, binding me, and he did talk of ropes, I can not recall if he called it shibari or not.

He was aroused when we would play, he was more aroused when the pain of something would take me higher. I did cum many times with him on the phone. I got to the point that just seeing his name online or hearing his voice would put me in a state of arousal. I couldn’t help it. I suppose he was training me, now that I look at it.

I never explored my masochistic side before, although, I did enjoy being spanked which was playfully done to me before. I loved being bound, helpless and enjoyed the thought of not knowing what would happen next to me.

He would have me blindfold myself, tease myself and put clothes pins on my nipples, it hurt but felt good, knowing that I was obeying and exciting him too.

He got off on my pain, and being able to take what he could, and would give me.

He also mentioned the electric wand and how he would use it on me. I was intrigued and knowing I would be willing to let “Him” Do it to me. I wanted to feel powerless, I wanted him to have all the power, to do what he wanted. However, I really did not want to feel my body bleeding or anything like that. He never went that far, it was always about pain and pleasure.

Years have passed and no longer speak. It was my decision to break it off. I have a very hard time , not signing back online using that screen name to find him. He stirred and brought things to life for me that I never knew that I had inside me. I miss those feelings, I long for them again.

I am not a pain slut, but I believe I am a masochist. I don’t need pain to be aroused, however, to an extent I love it.

I think of Chris a lot, and when I think of him I get that little sinking feeling in my belly. That warm place that is needful. I used my hand on myself, wishing it was his. I thank him for showing something deep inside me, that I didn’t know was there until he woke it.


avatara speaks, and good words too! I am moving this comment

September 26, 2008

to the face of the blog because I find her opinions add greatly to Rose’s points in the interview. I also find that both Rose and avatara, while two intelligent women who come from seemingly opposite sides of the spectrum, meet in the middle, so to speak and also have great commonality in argument. I agree with both of them, as different as they might be in practice. Both of them have been heavy hitters with me, and also very attentive to my own growth.

At a time when I was  confused about this issue of submission, and realizing that there was also dominance within my nature, I turned to both of them for further explanation. What their loving and attentive answers gave me was the beginning insight to my own nature and it was complex not a ‘simple’ issue. A woman did not just ‘fall to the feet of a man’, nor was I a woman who was looking for a man to take care of me, absolve me of my responsibilities, or punish me to ‘make’ me feel submissive.

I am a deeply submissive woman with  pieces of dominance in the mix. That doesn’t make me ‘not a true submissive’ as some would claim.

There are those who would try to strain that mixture into a bottle and cap it and label it, but I would still be a genii in a bottle and watch out if I ever got free of that cap. As both Rose and avatara have said here, we are much more complex creatures than that and this add beautifully to the end result.

That balance is there, and it is Imbalance when those parts, that make up the whole, are denied.  We are not totally one or the other, we are a delightful mixture.

Deal with it.

avatara: You all had to know I would chime in here (laughs)

Submission is something that is such a deep part of us, as deep as DNA and history, that It doesn’t have to be, nor should it be driven by external constructs….pressure from anyone, or anything.

Rather, it should be, as it was at one time, natural…We have lost sight of that…the nature part. In so many areas of life we have stepped aside from what is natural and accepted what (and my apologies to Rose here) our society and culture have tried to make us believe is the appropriate path. When I was growing up, the norm was that Mom was home taking care of the family while Dad was working to support the family. Perhaps the fact that my mother worked as well made me more aware of what I considered a “lack” at home. I don’t know. My father was a domineering man, harsh, angry in his reactions, and yet, his heart was soft and tender. He had been brought up in an environment where he had to be tough and unfeeling, unfair, in order to survive. He did support his family and mother was submissive to his decisions. The fact that she would never step in and speak to him when he was being domineering irritated me no end. It put me on a path that led me to be more dominant and controlling than I really wanted to be throughout my life. It also led me not to trust him.

As I have said to Jane often lately, nature abhors imbalance, it requires equality (shock), as Rose has pointed out. There is no totally submissive, nor is there totally dominant. There is a balance. The fact that nature intended for the male to be dominant, in his behavior, and to care for the submissive female and their offspring, doesn’t mean there isn’t room for balance between the two ends of the spectrum within an individual. Every human has a some of each within them. The key, and it is my passion to get this message out, is that a person figure out, for themselves, who and what they are and where the balance is for them. They have to understand themselves, accept who they are, and learn to love, and trust, who they are, before they ever look beyond themselves.

There should never be trust extended to someone else until one learns to trust themselves. I believe that “judgment” is a learned process, while tied to trusting oneself, which is developed over time, trial and error. The problem, as Rose mentioned is that we are social animals and there has to be trust within a group to function. The problem is, that there are no longer established social groups for us to grow into as we mature. At one time in this country, children grew up within a set community, with set standards and people that, over time, one knew they could trust. Now, that is seldom true unless one lives within a certain social status. We learn by trial and error how to recognize who to trust and who not to trust.

Another sad aspect is that we have been discouraged, on many levels, not to trust our innate intuition. Some people are afraid of that little voice that says “don’t go there, it isn’t safe, or that person isn’t a good person, or you are going to be in trouble”. So the one piece of equipment that might help us, is, in essence, disabled. So we go through life putting ourselves into situations, or with people, who end up hurting us. We stop trusting anyone and end up in a situation where we are somewhat cut off from people that we need in our lives.

As Rose said, Yin/Yang is everywhere in nature, within us, within the world we live in. Basically, in Chinese philosophy, it means the two fundamental principles, one negative, dark, passive, cold, wet, and feminine (yin) and the other (yang) positive, bright, active, dry, hot and masculine. The interactions and balance of these forces in people and nature influence their behavior. As I read that, I find it interesting that, as in so many things in nature, the masculine is the bright, active, positive influence. The male bird is the beautiful one, while the female is less bright. Perhaps it is because there are other, more fundamental, more important aspects to the female that should be focused on, rather than focusing on being “beautiful” by the world’s standards (sorry about the rabbit track) The reality is, there has to be balance in life, in an individual, and anyone who thinks they can judge capability by only one or two characteristics will be disappointed.

I agree with Rose, as well, that submission is not, or shouldn’t be, something you “feel”. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard, or read, someone saying “he holds me in my submission”, or “if I am not punished from time to time, I can’t feel my submission”. I AM a submissive woman, and how I “express” that submission has less to do with who I am with than it does with how I understand and accept myself. If I had to be at a man’s feet, or anywhere for that matter, in order to “feel” submitted or submissive, I would consider myself in need of deep introspection and maybe professional help. (smiles)

Where I differ with Rose is that, my submission is the same no matter where I am or who I am with. The “expression” of that submission will definitely differ, however, when I am faced with blatant ignorance, or some idiot on the interstate (smiles). Although I consider myself to be a Gorean woman because I studied the philosophies thereof, and slave, because I have given my complete submission to a Gorean man, I am still a very expressive, thinking, intelligent woman who doesn’t tolerate certain things. That doesn’t change my submission in any way, merely the expression of it. It doesn’t change the way I behave with my Master, nor the way I know I am to behave within certain groups. The difference is, I know how to express deference and respect, while still holding an opinion.

Someone once asked me what I would do if something were to happen to my Master and I wasn’t at his feet anymore, would I need to find another man to accept my submission? The answer to that is no, heartily no. It isn’t the man who makes me submissive, it is my inherent nature. Being able to express that nature to the extent I do today, requires a man, but I can express my nature just as well within other environments.

Where Rose is very right, and everyone should be aware of this, is that we don’t give up our rights, or responsibilities because we are submissive or at the feet of a man. Again, I don’t know how many times over the years I have seen women trolling through Gorean environments looking for a man to rescue them from whatever negative they perceive in their life. “I just can’t support myself, my boyfriend doesn’t love me, he doesn’t do what I want, he doesn’t this, or that, I don’t want to make decisions”. There is no more responsible person, no woman with more strength and determination than the truly submissive woman, whether she be slave Gorean, D/S, or not. We, as people, have to be the best, most honest, responsible, and realistic people in the world, Otherwise we won’t survive in a world that values unruly, bitchy women (smiles)

I might add to Rose’s point that you have the right to change your mind and leave…Not only do you have the right, you owe it to yourself, when you realize that you are in a relationship, or situation, that is hindering your growth, your understanding, or your fulfillment as a person, to move on. It may be the hardest choice you ever make, but one of my long time mantras has been “You can’t be good for someone else if you aren’t good for yourself”. I learned that the hard way and it is true. There should never be guilt for taking care of yourself, for searching for yourself, or for removing yourself from a bad situation. That should be one of the first things we are taught in life, that we, as human beings, are worthy and deserving of being ourselves, and we owe it to ourselves to learn who those selves are, and love them.

That is my passion…helping others to realize that they are vitally important people, who deserve to love and be loved, by themselves first. If that is in place, the rest of it will be so much easier…trusting others becomes easier if you know and trust yourself first.

Thank you Rose, for sharing so much of your life and thoughts here.

Part Two: Phil’s answers and observations.

September 16, 2008

For those reading this week, I am running the entries on Domination and submission, and have asked a number of Doms and submissives and slaves to write their own experiences, thoughts and answer some questions. I didn’t think people would take this up, especially the Doms, but now!

I am overwhelmed. People continue to respond, and are gathering themselves to respond to the responders! This is like a monster storm to me and I have to spend a lot of time with a chart keeping track.

But this is wonderful. The answers, experience, personal histories and beliefs on all these issues of D/s, etc…are a wonderful road map to options and possibilities. I am personally learning so much just reading the answers that are piling up on my desk and email. I have to print out everything to compile the blog as it goes…and I am amazed at the variance in experience.

This particular theme will run into next week easily because the Doms have come through and the women, too. I have received completed questionnaires, with much better answers than my poor, posed questions, (which were supposed to be just to get things going…) and people have sent me whole histories.

I have to say that I didn’t realize how far reaching this could go, or be, and didn’t think of all my contacts. I have sent more questionnaires out and they are still coming in. I am very thankful for all who participate in this experiment.


Lady Nyo: Where does negotiation begin? At what point within the

Phil: I believe that such matters are best dealt with very early on so that it is clear what the parameters of the interaction and relationship are to be. That way it is clear when either partner strays.
Lady Nyo: Where does friendship play into any of this? There are Doms who hold themselves aloof from any friendship. Do you see this as a problem?

Phil: Everyone is different. I have partners who are now close friends and we talk of many things, swap ideas and photographs of our ‘real lives’ Others prefer to just focus on the sexual interaction, to spend our time together exploring the power of the mind to generate intense physical pleasure. I enjoy the whole spectrum of such relationships. No one way is right for all.
Lady Nyo: Further, if the issue of sexual needs comes into play…as it seems it usually does, how can this relationship bypass exploitative means if no friendship from the Dom is offered? Is it a warning sign if a Dom expresses up front that there isn’t to be some kind of friendship or affection? Is affection a lead in to other issues?

Phil: I can only speak for myself. If I do not in some degree grow to have sincere affection for my partners, I cannot offer the depth of emotional interaction that is the highest aim of my practice. The high intensity exchange of sensual and sexual experiences that are the core of my practices short circuit the emotions and can lead to very strong bonds being formed. These have to be managed as they can cause deep feelings of frustration due to the very long distance nature of my practices. I am talking about love here and the ache of being unable to touch in the ‘real world’

Lady Nyo: Is Mentoring the same as Domming? Is there a difference? Is Sexual behavior allowed or should be allowed in a Mentoring relationship? Discipline? Punishment? Rituals? Are there distinct differences in Mentoring and being a Dom? This particular issue has come up over and over and it seems always to fall into two camps.

Phil: Mentoring is strange in that the fine line between the two states is easily blurred. I have a small number of partners where the relationship is more of teacher and guide. But my practices have the orgasm experience at their core so there is always sexuality within the relationship. These students are usually young women who are sexually inexperienced and looking for guidance on anything from how to masturbate to what an orgasm feels like.

Lady Nyo: Some have reported that a Dom calling themselves “Mentor” is another way to avoid the responsibilities of a Dom.
They take what they want from the relationship with the new sub, and avoid the responsibilities of domination.
It then just becomes an issue of control on the part of the so-called Mentor. Do you agree with this?

Phil: I put more into the Student Teacher relationship than other interactions. If I take up a student it is because I feel that I can help them in some way self realise an element of their character. Of course I also derive satisfaction intellectually from moulding their experience but also direct satisfaction from our sexual interactions. It is however, a greater responsibility to lead an inexperienced partner than one who is aware of their potentials.

Lady Nyo: What do you see are the responsibilities to a submissive from a Dominant? Should a submissive have a negotiated program from the beginning? How can she avoid the pitfalls of a Dom who is not really interested accept what he ‘wants’ from the relationship? And sometimes beyond the best of intentions, a Dominant fails because he just doesn’t have the energy anymore.

Phil: This question almost makes a case for a qualification in being a Dom or a Sub? A curriculum and tests of achievement, who is to decide the pass or fail if a Dom is perverse and keeps changing the aims and objectives? The uninterested Dom is balanced by the less than diligent sub. In each case they have a responsibility to agree the boundaries of their relationship and their expectations of each other. That should be discussed at the outset and agreed. If it is not realised then one or other partner should make it known and if not resolved their relationship should be dissolved. A sub should not ‘soldier on’ hoping their Dom will grow to need them as much as the want. It will not likely change and they will be dissatisfied and unhappy. A Dom may grow tired of a petulant partner and applying discipline may be only useful or pleasurable for a while. One can have too much of a good thing.

This is where I part company from the institutionalised D/s and BDSM ‘life style’. Once these practices were considered alternative, outside of society and extreme. Now they are bound by rules and mores and are ‘acceptable’. There is the title Dom and all the expectations and restrictions that are attached to the name, almost straitjacketed by the ‘rules’ of how to be Domly!

Likewise equally circumscribed is that of the ‘role’ of the sub. There is much discussion of ‘subspace’ and all the fine minutiae of how best to serve. There is even a uniform of sorts and grades of collars! How many stripes to make sergeant?

I am probably offending many here but The Order of the Golden Dawn had the precept ‘Do what thou wilt’ I add the socially acceptable codicil ‘as long as you both consent’. That in my view is the underpinning of relational collaboration. There will be a leaders and followers, but they will seek mutual self-realisation, through sexual or ritual practices or through pain or humiliation. To each their own in the appropriate measure but lets not tie ourselves up too tightly?

This ends Phil’s interview. Already I have received emails about Phil’s practice and experience, and either people can write me in emails and I will post them here in the face of the blog, or you can go to comments and post them there. Either way is fine with me.

I want to thank Phil for all his candor and time and also to put up a link to him:

Further, Phil answered a particular question that I raised to him: What is Dominance? This sounds obvious, but it was when I first met Phil and was rather curious as to what he found was so. In that spirit, and because Phil was NOT restricted to my rather narrow questions ( the purpose being that they also were general questions that were asked by other submissives ) I am going to post the “Dominance” answer from Phil here, possibly tomorrow with his further permission.

Lady Nyo

%d bloggers like this: