This blog entry is part of the series on BDSM
and psychology
Introduction
Lately I watched a documentary on transgender
persons that touched me very much. I have to admit in advance, that the
Dominion in general and Sir Cameron in particular is very open minded to most
sort of sexual deviance and wishes to be supportive to transgender, transsexual
and cross-dressing persons.
Yet, what we shall discuss in this blog is not
the theory of gender and sex, nor the possible sexual orientations of LGBTQ
persons, but that of their relationship with their partners. For as far as BDSM
is concerned, I think we might learn a lesson by the old instrument of analogy.
After all, whatever brand of sex or sexual identity you are in too, consenting
partners will always be an issue; particularly with kink as it forms one of the
criteria by which we regard ourselves as sane or as sick.
As ever, we are exploring, not rejecting.
Please feel no offence when we address things that might hurt you; it is not
intended.
The fear of being a 'not-normal' person
This might
be a tough thing to understand, but whatever issue comes up that involves a
gender role, sexual orientation, fetish or kink, most people in our society, neighbourhood,
friends and relatives still react on any deviation with disbelief, rejection,
repulsion or fear. How much this may hurt, I have always pleaded to remain tolerant,
also to those who are not showing tolerance towards us.
Beside,
even amongst kinky insiders, old age beliefs regarding gender duality and the
classical male-female roles are still very much alive. One of the most frequent
questions I get when I admit that I – as a sadist - play kinky scenes with both
men, women and transgender persons, is that if I am a homosexual person. My
answer is always the same; my whip has no gender.
Yet, I of
course understand the need for labels and I use them frequently in this blog. As BDSM theorist one can simply not write adequately without them. On
the other hand, a label as a theoretical description is mainly for
clarification of a particular urge or behaviour, as a person we are always much
more than just this or that.
Are such questions wrong?
Basically, I
do not think so. For a start we may simply conclude, that by asking such a
question - regarding sexual orientation, perversions being sick or the fear
that we will get off track even more – can be a genuine one. It may be that our
worldviews collide, it may be an expression of worry, it may be an expression
of intolerance; but it is a mere fact that many people carry misconceptions and
by being insulted we lose the opportunity to explain. In addition, we force
ourselves in the defence, a role that gives us less power and less
satisfaction, as we most likely react negative while we feel hurt.
This is one
of the points that will be very much depending on where you as a kinkster or
person that is outing a sexually different role do live; what place, what
culture and in what family circumstances.
The younger
generations who grew up with more sexual freedoms as their parents might find
many things a bit far-fetched or not an issue at all. I pleases me if that is
the case, because it means you are freer as many in the scene actually are or
can be.
In the
documentary there was a transgender person who outed transsexually as male to
female, and who had real fear of being a homosexual. Now, we all know that is nothing
to be afraid of, but for this woman, being regarded as a same-sex oriented man
felt wrong. So, I do emphasize, in her case, her fear was understandable.
Unfortunately, she was married and had children. So once she outed her spouse
and her child refused her choice, rejected her sexuality and eventually kept
calling her by her old male name. Which, of course, is an utter insult
and shows how intolerant, discriminating and hateful people can be, even those
you love and care for.
This is the
kind of pain many kinks and LGBTQ can understand, as most of us have
experienced this kind of reactions and thus we know how it hurts.
Why is consent such an issue?
In my last
blog I stated that; “generally speaking we can regard kink as sick when we lose
control over our urges and get other people involved without their consent. So
we can distinguish between healthy and unhealthy BDSM depending on the presence
of mutual consent. Not consenting BDSM is dangerous and can lead to the kind of
situations that are used by non-kinks to label that what we do as sick.”
I have to
admit, that we – including polyamory, kink, LGBTQ - sometimes still are
regarded ‘sick perverts’, even when we play sane, safe and sound and in full
consent with our play partners. And here is a novelty that we use in the Dominion.
It is not a real novelty, but nonetheless an extension of what is generally
regarded as consent, in the sense, that we involve all the partners we are in a
relationship with.
This means,
that when you are in the position that your partner does not agree with your
urges, you will have to negotiate in order to keep your relationship alive. It
should be very clearly communicated that this goes both ways. We regard it as
poor play when we cheat on our partners, as we give up on them, pursue only our
private pleasures and not the wellbeing of our partner(s) and our relationship
with them.
We can still
love our partner, take care of them, have sex, pay for the mortgage, play soccer
with the kids, even when our sexual preference changes. Basically it is an
inner development that we more often as not have not sought or opted for. Change
is an inherent property of life and not all chances are pleasurable or
desirable.
Feelings of
guilt, loneliness, anger, pain and despair are understandable and often also
justified. What is not justified is the refusal of change. If you e.g. discover
at 38 that you are a bi-sexual submissive, this does not mean that your partner
has similar feelings, nor should they have. What you however should expect is
to be taken seriously with your urges. Love is not unconditional, nor loyalty,
but honesty always works best.
Consider,
when you bottom with a person of your sex, in what do you actually ‘cheat’ if your
partner does not wish to top, nor a sex-change, so in what is that person
justified in feeling betrayed? And why is being faithful always connected with sex?
Most
likely, the clue will lie in their vision regarding the mutual future, in their
perception of the quality of the relationship or in their beliefs perhaps. All
perfectly understandable, but it turns out to be a very individual motivation,
driven by what your partner loses, feels being taken away from them or by what
they regard as sexually unacceptable.
As any
person, your partner – and remember partners usually partner for a reason – is entitled
to their opinion, but so are you. In an equal partnership, or a partnership of
equals there is no other way to deal with change as to speak and argue about it.
By seeking to communicate your own needs, you show that you take both your
urges and your partner seriously and meanwhile also value your partner’s
opinion and consent. By keeping silent, by ‘cheating’ and by living a double
life, you harm yourself, your relationship and your reputation. It is not worth
it.
By being
open to your partners, you show the wish to be at par with them. If they simply
reject you and throw you out of the house, they do not see that the other way
around. Just like we do towards them, our partners have the obligation to take
care of us. By labeling us as perverts, sick or sinners, they are actively
seeking justification to move away from their own promises.
In that
case, we can regard the ‘label’ as an expression of intolerance, irrespective
or it is socially, politically or religiously founded. We can do so, because we
hurt no one, take our responsibility and make use of our right to sexual
self-expression. There is no reason to feel less humane as others, no medical
reason, no ideological reason and no practical reason, as we do not bother them
at all.
As with
religious intolerance, we can also regard sexual intolerance as an act of
fundamentalism.
Yes, but …
No but’s
here, I think. Not enabling consenting adults to privately live out their own
chosen sexual identity is simply not an act that shows respect to nature’s
diversity, the freedom of thought and the very human pursue of sexual happiness.
Period.
When your
partner, your parents, your friends, your colleagues, your children cannot
accept you as who you are, while privately acting as a consenting adult, they are simply
being fundamentalist. They may have their reasons for their convictions, but
what they actually are doing is to say that their ideas, their beliefs, their
urges are more important than ours, that we are not equal in worthiness, that
we are not equal in our freedoms and that we are not equal in our rationale.
It will be
obvious, that fundamentalist still regard their views as superior, and they
may, but they do not have to become a fundamentalist. I know many people who
think that my way of life is not working – yet, they do not wish to condemn me,
to reject me or to limit my freedoms, as long as I respect their freedoms too.
I have
personally been in the situation that my partners eventually could not live
with the fact that I am who I am. Some rejected me because I am a sadist, even
when I had no BDSM-relationship with them. Other rejected me because I am
polyamory, even when I had been open and honest and even sexually faithful and
loyal with them. It was not even by my acts that I was rejected, but simply
because of my convictions.
Who is poor?
The answer
will be obvious; the fundamentalist is poor, because they have not a factual
basis for their assumptions – like scientific evidence, a psychologically
relevant diagnosis or non-consenting behaviour that harms others – but only an
opinion.
We should –
in general - respect each other’s opinion, for as far as we have a warranted
argument for it, and we even could respect opinions that are unfavourable to
us, as long as we are not being forced to live according to their assumptions
to what is a healthy sexual expression.
I do not
force anyone to have a sex-life like I have it, or even a sex-life at all (and
there seems to be quite an unhappy lot in that situation, despite the abundance
of opportunities and love available). I do respect the public place and do not
display overtly obvious perversions – at least not to the extend as normal
television programs or advertising do show stereotypical heterosexual binary
gendered macho crap that contain the many lies that make the – at least small -
majority of our fellow citizens rather frustrated when it comes to sex and relationships.
Only in
this blog, I get rather outspoken. And those in opposition to it, the cross that
delivers you is at the upper right corner of this screen.
Conclusions
In this
blog I argued about the importance of consent. Not only between those we play
with, but with regard to all persons we have an (intimate/romantic)
relationship with. I suggested that the pursuance of sexual happiness is
legitimate and humane. In order not to do this at the cost of others, I stressed
the importance of communication and the mutual respect that we as partners
should have; this includes that our partners know what we feel and what we do.
Finally, I emphasised the notion of equality in having a right to one’s
opinion. When we do not agree, we should part as friends. When we find a
work-around, our relationship has gained, not lost. Being open, flexible and
vulnerable, is always more difficult, but ultimately better as sacrificing a working
relationship for mere ideology.
As always,
I wish you good luck on your journeys, in- and outside of the dungeon.
Enjoy – Sir
Cameron
