BDSM Vocabulary … are we listening or condemning?

Words are expressive; we use words to describe thoughts and emotions in a way that helps us to communicate that which we wish to say. This functions, because words have meaning[i] by which we can express our ideas and concepts.

The fact, that the word ‘heaven’ has a different meaning as the word ‘heavy’, shows that words are particularly suited to express differences that sets one idea, or concept apart from another. In this sense we say that we define words; they are outlined, limited and restricted to have this and not that meaning. Of course there are exceptions to it - like words that are used metaphorically or that are ambiguous in their meaning – but this does not take away the fact, that in order to clearly understand what we say, we also in the cases of those exceptions, we have to specify our intentions and we make use of additional words to do so.

But the whole concept of words as being meaningful is centred on the idea of rationality. Therefore, love is better expressed in deeds on an emotional level, as it can be done with words. Words seem to be the instrument of our logical faculty, with its basic true and false distinction. Behaving socially e.g. does not exclude the use of speech, but behaviour can also be expressed simply by actions that are not verbal utterances. Such behaviour also follows ‘definitions’ that we call social rules. The fact that we distinguish good and bad social behaviour is inherently related to our logical ability and that again to our ability to speak in a language that is developed in a social process like culture. And also the word emotion is not an emotion itself, but it refers to something that we ‘label’.

The idea that words are limited, context dependent and only in active use, as expressed in sentences, develop their full lingual functionality, should make us aware that words themselves are not our reality and are only means that we use to communicate with one another, or with ourselves.

So what does this mean for BDSM?

First and foremost it means that the limitations of speech itself, also apply to our ability to express our BDSM experience verbally. Saying “This will hurt” can invoke many reactions. It can mean that you will swing that flogger with an extra bit of force right on top of that outstanding butt. Yet, it can also mean that you are about to clean a little bruise with alcohol. Stating things more clearly - like: I will hurt you with this flogger - is not a great help, as we still do not know how much it will hurt, or why we are motivated to hurt someone.

The language we use in BDSM is borrowed from our normal language. We use the word hurting, and naturally by most people this is perceived as something negative, something unpleasant that is to be avoided. But while flogging, we are not hurting because of that, but we are spending sensations on someone’s skin, these sensations invoke emotions and bodily reactions in that other person, which in return leads to another perception of the pain. It is a psychological thing and something that – as an interpretational context in which the activity makes sense – cannot be expressed in those few words: I will hurt you.

So many of the things we do and wish for, can be explained in words, but for those not understanding the mechanisms behind it, the motivations, the rewards, the pleasure, the words do not make sense in the way it does to us.

Explaining things like motivations, feelings of pleasure or sexual impulses in rational concepts that are clear and obvious to others is very complicated. It is not only specifically hard in the case of BDSM, it is the same with normal sexuality, complex feelings and religious or mystical experiences or simple things like the beauty of a sunset or a particularly artistic painting; what it does to us can be expressed in words, but it is not the full experience, not the complete picture and in some ways even confusing in itself.

This also means, if someone else has a different understanding or a situation, or even seems unexpectedly close, it does not necessarily confirm that you have indeed understood each other. Normally you will, as our words are not that vague, but assuming that you speak plain language can be misleading. Particularly in a scene where so many differences in sexual kink are gathered under an umbrella abbreviation like BDSM, this should prompt us to cautiousness and consideration; are we listening or are we condemning …?

Sir Cameron

---

[i] How words have or carry meaning is not an issue here; whether words refer, are signs, or if we attribute meaning to words; for who is interested, please get yourself some books on the philosophy of language. Good sources are Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, John Searle, Paul Ricoeur, Jaques Derida, Willaim Alston and of course, Wikipedia.

Topping from the bottom - Myth debunkers refuted

Recently I was searching for BDSM play that focus around Divinity and I accidentally stumbled over a nice blog called Diva Toolbox’s. The article in question is called‘ 6 Myths about BDSM Inspired by "50 Shades of Grey”’ and blogged by Ande Lyons from the website: ‘www.bringbackdesire.com’.

Particularly the 2^nd ‘Myth’ that the ‘dominant is in control’, made me perform the well known Mr. Spock eyebrow movement; ‘Fascinating’. Why does she think so?

Please understand, that I have no problem with Lyons expressing her opinion, I just do not recognize myself in it. For the sake of comfort, I simply take a chunk out of her explanation, so we do not have to switch between browsers tabs:

“A dominant’s job is to fulfill the submissive’s needs — that’s what brings the dominant pleasure. “Every good dominant knows that the submissive is really the partner in control,” says Jennifer Hunter. “All a submissive woman has to do is relax and enjoy the ride while delicious sexual acts are visited upon her. She’s the star of the proceedings. Someone is ministering to her needs for a change. Master is choreographing all the action.”

A good starting point would be to acknowledge that the Dominant indeed takes pleasure out of the interaction with the bottom and that he Dominant as Master indeed is choreographing the action.

The rest of the remarks are a bit harder to swallow. Concluding that a Dominant would  only be ‘good’, when they know that the bottom is really the one in control, is a bit far stretched in my opinion. Just as seeing the woman as the submissive of a Dominant male is a classic view for sure, but not the only option. Yet, for the sake of argument, we assume that the quote – as it is – does aim at the ‘classical’ D/s relationship, where the male is Dominant and the female submissive.

Now, let’s go back to the idea that it really is the submissive woman that is in charge. Is this so? It is certainly is a valid point of view and that this idea may appeal to many women is understandable, as it gives you a very controlled way of being served in a naughty fashion. It seems an exemplary instance of the strong woman that is sexually demanding and being in charge over her own experience.

However fascinating such a scene might be; it is only a view in which the Lady seeks someone to do a job for her (which is not really a mind-set of servitude). The Dominant is ‘ministering her needs’ and ‘choreographing the action’. And according to his job description – one is tempted to add. Nevertheless, there is nothing to be said about choosing this way of actions and it can be regarded as a form of power exchange too, when this is how the scene is agreed upon. But, to me - and without doubt to many others too - it more looks like topping from the bottom, which – as the Sadist bastard honestly admits - is not one of Sir Cameron’s personal favourites.

Perhaps I may suggest a lexical distinction with regard to the use of the words ‘control’ and ‘power’. If we say, that the Dominant is in control, what do we precisely mean by that? Does it mean, he controls the bottom and she is helpless, or do we mean that he controls the power that was given to or shared with him, or perhaps simply even taken by him?

It is not, that I do not recognize the truth in Jennifer Hunter’s words – that Lyons is quoting, unfortunately without reference – but I do not see how it would debunk a myth. It is simply describing one way of playing a scene, not the only way it can be played, nor the only sane one. There are certainly forms of control that do not fit into the description we read above.

If you e.g. take sadism in account, the whole picture easily changes. The delicious sexual acts – that are so naughty - may just not be present at all. The whole scene may last for hours and not involve sex, but only show how the slave is being subjugated to the sole pleasure of the Master.

The bottom is still the partner, with (respected) soft and hard limits and with the possibility to use a safeword to hold or even stop the scene, but to describe that as being in control is a bit overdone.

Maybe, a too theoretical approach of BDSM as an “exchange of power between a Dominant and a submissive” – mentioned in Myth 6: BDSM is primarily about pain FICTION! – is misleading. Some masochists that I know, do bottom to get their thing, but they are not submissive at all. Some Dominants need pain, in order to get in the right mindset to play effectively.

As true as it normally is - that the needs of the bottom play a huge role in guiding the scene - the real challenge that lies behind it, is the trust in the Master; in his integrity as a sound person, in his abilities, in his care and in his viciousness that is mean enough to play out your fantasy.

In my experience, giving trust is quite something else as giving yourself over to lust.

And if your little bottom is having a good time and you push it deeper and deeper and lead it closer to its limits; you also know from experience, that the whole idea that the bottom is actually in charge is a farce; it cannot think clear anymore, its sense of self is floating, its butt is hungering for another stroke of that massive bruising cane – and than the MASTER stops; as it is he that is in control, and that is his job, particularly when the bottom no longer has any control left, not over the body, not over its will, not over its health, yes, it not even has the power left to safeword out.

This may – and must not – be the way that BDSM is experienced by many of the kinky folk, but it is part of it. For me it is, and therefore the statement “Myth 2: the Dominant is in Control. FICTION!” is not debunking a Myth, it is not even debunking a reality, it is merely advocating one way of experience over another because it better suits with the ideas of Lyons and Hunter on how BDSM might be. They are entitled to that, but I doubt how many of the Masters and Mistresses that I know would agree with them. However, the advice of committing to a safe, sane and sound BDSM praxis I do heartily share.

Concluding I wish to stress the point, that experience precedes theory. Whether the experience is morally justified or not, is quite another question. Challenging experience by calling it a Myth is a theoretical stance one can take, but perhaps, we can easily find a more common line; let’s just say, that the Control of the Dominant over the submissive is itself not a myth, but of a mythological character. A distinction that in my opinion, better suits BDSM fantasy play.

When in 2011 the first part of Erica Leonard’s (1963) ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ trilogy hit the market, there were of course numerous reactions, varying from very positive to very negative, all neatly mirroring our societies approach to erotic literature.

On itself this shows that three successive waves of feminism have only been able to reach those who lived near the shore anyway. For the rest it was safe and sound back to the historically, or - now perhaps - self-imposed confinements of the convenient moral of the majority.

Grey was a hit, for numerous reasons. To name a few probable candidates; because it is exciting to read erotic fiction for females while sitting in public transport, reading secretly on your e-pad or smart phone; because relationships – any marriages anyway - are boring and because sex has lost its magic and degenerated to a mass-customized product that competes with red-wine and Zumba fitness for an ever more equally free female human.

But what is this freedom worth? It shows similarities to the idea that chess player and currently oldest grandmaster Victor Korchnoi is said to have once asserted with regard to communism: ‘Before communism arose most of us had nothing and a few of us had something, now we all have nothing.’

WDYM? Well, I mean, that - and that’s of course a big premise – if men were not truly sexually liberated in the past, what extras does more equality to men and their views that are instrumentalized in the structures of society actually offer women when it comes to living as free sexual beings? _____  Nada.

At any time when an erotic novel came out that in one way or another posed a threat to ideas that were dominant in a culture, it was naturally met with resistance. It was like that with Nabukov’s cheerful ‘Lolita’ and it was like that with the challenging ‘Story of O’. So why would it be different with the ‘Fifthy Shades of Grey’ trilogy? Wikipedia lists that it is accused by critics of stereotyping gender roles, depiction of BDSM and to presuppose romanticism, to name a few.

What is essential is that all three of the above mention books were successful enough to leave traces in the society of their time. With regard of the depth, scope and longevity of the Grey trilogy it is of course still to be seen: therefore the title, ‘Fifty Years O’ Grey’ as with O, we still love – or hate, or fear – her after fifty years and it is the same with Dolores Haze. Many (wo)man have dreamed to own O or to play with Lo, because it is not the age or the submission – consensual or not – that is so appealing to our mind’s sexual road map, but rather the fact that things like ‘age’ or ‘submission’ circle around the concept of transgressing borders; whether they are right or wrong in the eyes of the beholder.

The Dutch reporter Raymond van den Boogaard – in his preface to the Story of O – comes to a similar conclusion and ponders on the question in how far O and Grey represent a different stance on how sexuality is perceived in Western society.

In O, he finds an attempt of transgression regarding social conventions and personal borders that is touching on the dark and cruel part of our psyche; whereas in the Grey trilogy, he rather spots a hedonistic motive to try out diversity, avoiding the struggles regarding excess, danger and deliverance. Eventually he concludes that O now managed to be influential for more than sixty years and doubts if we in half a decade still will remember Christian Grey.

In this regard I agree with him, as indeed the perspective of seeing sexuality as a commodity that is to be negotiated before it can be enjoyed in all ‘fifty shades’ stands in strong contrast to the deep personal quest of O, who - disregarding the costs – struggled against having her own urges be subordinated to anything else as her own free choice to life or die as an loving object.

Notice, that O was realist enough to understand the objectification for what it was, yet she lovingly consented by her obedience. Her decision to be owned was her own to make and a free choice too. Not being able to control being loved by her Master, she followed her own power to love in order to find a meaning in life and death.

Let’s hope that not many have to carry the burden of O in their heart. But, when you have ever lost one of your devotees, by time or by suicide, make sure, you never forget.

Thank you, sweet adorable H.

Sir Cameron is occupied with O ever since he found out it was written for him. In his articles, his stories and the books he play a role in, O will return over and over again. It will, however, be clear, that many of the assumptions made by Declos will be subject to critique, both with regard to their factuality as to their alethic reality.

I was severely shocked today when I read the following post on About.com:

"I have no idea what sex is all about even though I've been married on paper for 45 years. We had sex once that's it. He told me that it was disgusting, and promised it would never happen again and it hasn't. He won't talk to me lives his life in the basement and will only work the midnight shift. He won't even park his car next to mine. I really never experienced real sex or love. For some reason I believe in our vows, like they really do any good."

Signed: Amy

___

This is so hard to believe that one might be inclined to take it as a hoax. But what if it is not? What if there are more women who live their lives like Amy, not knowing sex. Or does she, without knowing?

She must - at least - have dreams, fantasies and perhaps - or even likely in 2013 – masturbate (which is am excellent way of having sex-with-one). Yet, it is still shocking to read such a post. For those who are free, everything is allowed. However, those who are bound by a sex negative morality - the idea that sex or a particular sexual act is something bad in itself - may suffer like our unknown Amy.

The fact that this suffering is perhaps the result of a free choice, to cling to once given vows or moral convictions, may not render us insensitive for the damage that suppressing ones sexuality can do to a persons psychical health. While not willing to be reductionist by claiming sex to be an essential part of our psyche, it nevertheless is for most of us: we experience ourselves as sexual beings.

Once we open our eyes to the fact that sexuality is first and for all a mental thing that does start and evolve in our mind, we can develop some sensitivity for the gruesome effects of limiting other persons sexuality by rules that are not accounting for human sexual behavior in its fullness and richness.

Like the German philosopher Lessing once said, by the mouth of Nathan the Wise; ‘they are not all free, those who mock their chains’ (my own translation SRC).

Let us, as sexual adults, sound and consensual practitioners and lovers of sex, never forget that all individuality is defined by rules that make us who we are. In this sense, we can only agree with Salomon Burke, when he sings: ‘None of us are free.’ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFkmRp_G2uo)

However, when freedom is defined as having no limitations or borders or laws, are we still distinct as a person? Therefore, absolute freedom only exists as a transcendental idea, in factual life, freedom will always be limited by our respect or love for others – either this is man or thing, heaven or earth. And that what is out of love, is good and sets us free.

Did I just argue that free sex leads to morality? I do not think so, but at least I know that without morality, free sex does not work. When we limit freedom to our morality, we get close to Ayn Rand’s idea of egocentric individuality that has the right – not to say the obligation – to pursue individual happiness and wealth.

The objectivist tenet will likely shrug, when I appeal to mourn for Amy, but what do I know. Because I love sex and find it important, I think others may feel likewise. To read such a quote as the above, opens my eyes to a suffering that is not mine, but still very recognizable.

Regrettable as it is, Amy – and other like you – it is never too late. Human sexuality can and may flourish up to high age. When you feel it is your time, go ahead and take what is yours, then your sexuality has always been yours and yours alone. Live it with respect for your own urges and share it with love and caress.

Short pondering on what sex is ....

Sexy is when you feel sexy. So it is with sex. Our brain is a most sensitive sexual organ; trust it to decide for yourself what defines sex, regardless if it is flirting, fantasy or physical intercourse; it counts what is sex for you.

Yet, do not expect others to feel like you; they likely do not. It always helps to be polite and ask. Never push your views on sexuality on others, but respect their own individual views; to discover other person(s) sexually - consenting of course - can be one of the most wonderful experiences one can share. Enjoy it while you can.