Masculine Submission

No greater love has a man than to live his life for the one he loves

The false dichotomy behind a “natural” dominant/submissive

I want to thank Dumb Domme for this post because it gives me a source I enjoy linking to in order to launch into a discussion that doensn’t immediately fit what she has written. Also, it is my apparent mission in life to separate good science from bad (because I consider myself a scientist and believe science is the inherently beneficial effort to improve the human experience).

When you get into the car, do you put on your seatbelt? I don’t care if you do or not, I want you to consider that the answer you give might have its foundations (but not its complete answer) in your genetic makeup. Go ahead and be skeptical, because I am generally skeptical about such claims. However, after looking at the work of Guang Guo at UNC, I’ve tried to enrich my understanding of that idea.

Prof. Guo (and his colleagues) has found a statistically significant link to whether or not a male wears a seatbelt and a specific iteration (9r/9r) of the DAT1 dopamine transporter gene. In general terms, this specific genetic iteration provides a protective effect against males developing risky patterns, even when controls for social characteristics are implemented. What this does not mean is that whether a man wears his seatbelt or not depends on having the 9r/9r DAT1 iteration. It means that having it, or not, influences whether he does – and at what age he begins to do so (potentially).

I’ll leave that hanging and look at genetics from a different point of view. I have my Grandma’s mouth – the lips and shape are unmistakably passed along from her. I have the body hair pattern of one maternal grandfather and the thinning hair of another. My voice is, at times, very much like my father’s. The point is that physical attributes are passed along genetically. This is undeniably true, and hardly needs even the introduction that I have given it.

If the structure of my hands or of my mouth can be influenced by genetics, then is it not also possible that the structures within my brain are also influenced by genetics? I don’t know if there is a definitive answer, but the answer seems likely to be affirmative. Since different brain structures control different behaviors and thought patterns, we could then infer that some preferences and behaviors could follow lines of inheritance.

For example, schizophrenia is often seen to run in families. So is depression. Is it possible that sexual submissiveness or dominance is also influenced by genetics? This is where I point out that there is a genetic link, through the 9r/9r DAT1 genotype’s protective effect against dopamine, to whether or not a man wears a seatbelt or not. If seatbelt wearing is linked to a specific gene; then why not wanting to control or be controlled in a sexual encounter?

I want to be clear that I am not arguing that there absolutely IS a genetic component to BDSM. I am saying that it is possible that there is a link. Then I am asking: So, what if there is? Does it make any difference?

Let me leave that question hanging while I talk about Michael Shanahan’s study linking genes to school dropout rates. This study is important to me because it finds two things. First, there is a specific genetic iteration that correlates to academic achievement (through disruptive behaviors – not through innate intelligence). Second, it found that the extra risk this genetic iteration poses towards academic success can be overcome with the right environmental controls. This, put simply, means that we are not slaves to our genes.

Back to the previous question: What does a (possible/probable) genetic link to F/m (because that’s what this blog focuses on) mean? It simply means that there are people for whom dominance and submission is a natural state in an intimate relationship. Shanahan’s study shows that these natural tendencies can be defeated. (What it doesn’t show is if these kids whose environment overcame their disruptive genes ever enjoyed going to school – so we can’t extrapolate as to whether a genetically disposed submissive who is pushed into a non-submissive role is happy about it. Based on my experience, the answer is no (because I believe I’m someone whose genetics orient them towards submission in intimate relationships).

But if environment has the power to overwhelm genetic tendencies; then it surely has the power to shape them. The sum of my life experience has led me to express my submissiveness towards Mistress Delila in specific ways – for example, kneeling in supplication or putting my head in Her lap. What’s more, I am, to some extent, in control of my environment. I can expose myself to various stimuli or cut them out of my life entirely (with limitations, of course). This means I am constantly becoming submissive, even while I am now, and always have been, a submissive man.

This is a sort of reasoning way to get to what Carl Rogers deduced in the 1960s:
This process of the good life is not, I am convinced, a life for the faint-hearted. It involves the stretching and growing of becoming more and more of one’s potentialities. It involves the courage to be. It means launching oneself fully into the stream of life.

Okay, not I’m pulling yet another string into this tangled mess. This comes from something I wrote a while back. As a summary, I’ll say that the point is that we (men) are immersed in social pressure to be “manly.” (Women face their own set of social pressures.) It begins before we are born and it hits us from nearly all directions at nearly all times. We cannot say that it has no impact. We can only recognize the impact and act to counter-balance it when we believe it is wrong. As I said just up the page a bit, we can have (limited) power over our environment and how it influences us.

Now, I’ve said all of this so I can address DD’s central question: Are Dominants born or made? Then answer, I believe is: The evidence is inconclusive. There is probably a genetic predisposition. However, a person’s life will decide whether that genetic predisposition is activated or not. Just like you may have a genetic predisposition to lung cancer, but if you never smoke it never gets activated. What exact environmental factors activate, promote, and influence sexual domination are unclear, and likely will vary widely across a very large population. More to the point of the question: IT DOESN’T MATTER.

People talk about “natural” dominance and submission, inferring a genetic component, as if it were somehow better than dominance or submission learned through social interaction. It isn’t! In fact, given the fact that humans are inherently social creatures, and immediately set up societies everywhere they go, social influences are just as natural as genetic influences! This is especially true when you consider the multi-generational arch where gene influence behavior which in turn influences gene which influences other behaviors, etc., etc.

Even if someone “has always known” their sensual power orientation (did I just invent a term?) their memory doesn’t include some portion of their life. I have a very good memory, and can vaguely remember some big and scary events that happened when I was three years old, but I can’t remember a lot more than I can. Just because you remember always being one way doesn’t mean that it is because of genetic predisposition. You, too, were subjected to a world’s worth of socialization before you knew what it was.

To me, if we strip it down to its bare essence, sensual power orientation is about control or be controlled. Other kinks may be involved, but the heart of it would appear to be who is in charge. That is best understood, in my mind, as an orientation. As DD says, it is not immutable – it is flowing, changing direction, evolving. For some, it may even switch directions. But for a large number of us, it points in a single direction – though not as deeply in that direction for any two people.

We are all captains of our own life-ship. Our parents laid the basic hull structure of that ship with their own biological material. Then life added rooms and knocked down walls. We floated aimlessly for a while. We went the direction we were told we should go. But the nose of the ship kept turning a certain way. Is it nature or nurture? Who cares? I doubt any thinking individual can swear that it is entirely one way or the other.

Just like the captain of a ship is responsible for its actions, we are responsible for what we do. I don’t care how deeply you’ve sailed into the Sea of Dominance, you better damn well know your ropes if you expect to come alongside my ship – because this ship is the only thing between me and the deep, blue sea and I’m not going under for anyone! The responsibility of knowing what you are doing only deepens if you represent yourself as an old salt when your partner is still green around the gills.

In other words, it’s a damned sight more important that a dominant knows the skills necessary to pull off what they are attempting than it is to know if she has specific genes or just a kinky life. F/m covers a lot of territory, so learn the specific risks and safety precautions you need so that it is rewarding for everyone involved. If you aren’t an expert, start slow and build slow. You can always come back to push a little further – unless you are dead, in which case it doesn’t matter.

I want to revise and extend a specific statement from DD as way to close by way of example: DD wrote: The idea that ‘you have it or you don’t’ doesn’t support a culture where dominants are encouraged to ask questions, admit mistakes, or use caution — and that’s dangerous. It doesn’t promote honesty — I suspect that’s why many dominants lie about their experience — out of fear of not being ‘true’ enough or ‘natural’ enough to be a ‘real dominant.’

My example:
In the history of the NFL, there are few running backs who had more impact that Walter Payton. I heard an interview with him after he had retired a bit and he was asked why he remained at the top of his game for so long. His answer went something along the lines of this:
When I began, I didn’t care about technique. I went out there and I ran. I was fast enough and big enough to do the job. But I made myself a student of my position, and as my physical talents leveled off, I was able to improve my technique. I became a better running back because I worked at being a better running back.

New Book Teaser – Emily Watson

I’ve been working on a book length work of fiction – my first. It is now done with editing and I’m starting the writing part of my second. But I wanted to provide just a glimpse of what is coming along, as soon as I get a publisher’s green light.

Click through to read a teaser.

Read more…

Male submission is not a Greek fraternity

I have been seeing a lot of kerfluffle in certain places lately concerning the “alpha male” in regards to male submission – i.e., can an alpha male be submissive? It is something that grates on my nerves. Sometimes I just roll my eyes, but sometimes I get upset. It’s a stupid trope, and I’d love to see it die. I don’t think it will, though, for several reasons – or because it has several usages.

The first thing to start with is to try and nail down what is meant by “alpha male.” The place to start with that is to break it down even further. “Male” is simply a biological designation of sex. By itself, it has no connotative value. All the stuff that we tie to it is not about being male, but about being men, and “man” is about gender, which means its about gender roles and how society tells us who we should be based on whether we have a vagina or penis.

The designation of “alpha” is from the field of ethology, which purports to study “natural” animal behavior. It is perfectly fine to study the natural behavior of, for example, white-tailed deer – because they can and do live (somewhat) independent of human beings. However, it is impossible to do the same with human beings. I would think it would be self-evident why that is impossible, but I will get back to that later.

For now, let’s look at what “alpha” means in relation to animal behavior. Simply put, it is the animal, male or female, that holds the highest social station. Other animals show deference – chimpanzees bow to the alpha, most birds perch lower than the alpha – each species shows deference in its own way. If one rule is generalizable – and it is dubious to generalize across the entire animal kingdom – it would be that the alpha gets preferential access to food. There is absolutely NO generalizable rule for sexual activity with alphas – even if we limit ourselves only to primates.

I don’t have data to show this, but I’m willing to be that most people who talk about “alpha males” are talking about the outdated understanding of wolves that was gained by observing captive packs. In an unnatural setting, unnatural behaviors evolved.

In nature, a wolf pack consists of a mated pair and their offspring. When the young wolves approach sexual maturity, they leave and find a mate of their own to start a new pack. The lack of non-alpha males breeding isn’t due to dominance, but because they are likely not yet sexually mature. Oh, and by the way, homosexual behavior is fairly common in wolves when the alpha female comes into heat. I don’t know enough to say that every wolf takes a turn in the barrel, so to speak, but it isn’t as easy and cut-and-dried as the BDSM’ers who spout alpha-nonsense would have us believe.

This is where I say that all the stuff that comes before doesn’t matter. It only matters that those who defend the alpha-nonsense want to use the animal kingdom as defense of their nonsense. But the biology-in-comparison argument simply fails due to overwhelming facts to the contrary.

But it doesn’t matter because humans are not chimpanzees or lions or ants or any other social animal. We are humans. If the alpha-nonsense breaks down in comparison to other animals, it could still be true for humans. So if we are going to look at humans, specifically, then we are talking “alpha man.”

An alpha man, if the meaning is preserved, is a guy who is at the peak of society. I don’t know who that is, but it isn’t the vast majority of guys who bandy the term about. Let’s argue that there is a class of alpha males – they would be contained in what C. Wright Mills refers to as “the power elite.” Again, we are excluding the vast majority of men, manly or not.

In other words, the phrase CANNOT be used as it is intended, and that is my point. Stripped of its intended meaning, it has come to be a lazy crutch for people to prop themselves up with when it comes to justifying outdated gender roles. The meaning has been perverted to become a defense for a caricature of manhood. It is an amalgamation of bad stereotypes twisted in the defense of an image of manhood that never truly existed. It is the demon of “real man” that our society has created to keep men captive inside a box.

In a way, the term “alpha male” is fitting because it refers to all of the misbehaviors and bad attitudes that have become linked to Greek fraternities in American colleges. It also bears as little resemblance to reality as those institutions manage to do at their worst.

It’s time to expose this vacuous trope for what it is – a mockery of manhood created by people who were afraid of what they would find if they looked inside of themselves. Can a guy be an “alpha man” and be submissive? Hell, I’m not sure a guy can be an “alpha man” and be an adult.

What I know is this – because of the whole “alpha man” bullshit, too many men are scared of their submissive desires. And far too many (but far from all) dominant men are assholes because they believe they are the only “real” men out there. Beyond that, I told someone else earlier tonight that “When private things are used to shame and shackle men, it’s time for men to speak up.”

An elephant is eaten one bite at a time. A damaging trope is killed one voice at a time. This is my bite.

New story for sale

Ravenous Romance has graciously included my story “Her Dirty Valentine” in the new anthology: My Kinky Valentine. Many thanks to everyone there, and especially F. Leonora Solomon, for being a delight to work with.

Shaving

For a while now I have been trying to figure out what I want to say about shaving. On the one hand, it seems to be a rather odd topic because (I would guess that) the vast majority of adults in America shave one part of their body or another. So why would they want to hear anything about what I have to say on the matter? On the other hand, I’ve learned a lot about shaving because I shave more than one part of my body on a regular basis. Not all shaving is the same, but there are some (I think) interesting things that can make a chore easier or get it done better.

Beyond that, most of the shaving I do is stuff that has nothing to do with BDSM. It is either for purposes of hygiene or appearance. At a point, however, both hygiene and appearance become part of making myself appealing to Mistress Delila – so they become part of my submissive…routine(?). So mostly it is beyond the topic of this blog, and where it touches, it is only tangential. But I guess it is enough because here we are – or at least, I am.

The first thing I’m going to say about shaving is that not everything I say about my experiences with shaving will be true for you. You have different hair and skin combinations than I do. So if something I say doesn’t sound right to you; then feel free to disregard it. Skip along to something that makes more sense.
Read more…

Is there an ideal scene?

One of my favorite kinky bloggers, Stabbity, has a post describing the perfect kinky scene. While I generally like the suggested improvements, it made me realize something. I really don’t care what “the scene” looks like, I don’t want to be part of it.

What would be perfect for me would be a world where no one cares about FemDom/malesub dynamics or specifics. It would be a world where my relationship with Mistress Delila would be as uninteresting and uninspiring as any random “traditional” form of relationship. At very least, it would be common and accepted enough that no one thought we should try to forge friendships around things that we have no intention of ever sharing with someone else.

I’m not anti-social, but I have relatively low social needs. I’m generally happy spending time with my immediate family and a very small circle of friends (I’m talking fewer than ten people, and maybe actually half that number or less).* Even when I do belong to larger social groups, I tend to separate out of them. For example, I belong to a church – but it is a small church, and if the attendance grew much; then I’d be uncomfortable (and I avoid the services where attendance is overflowing). Even when a normal attendance of two dozen (or fewer) are there, I only interact with maybe half a dozen at any level, and only two or three with any level of closeness.

This is perfectly normal for me and trying to interact with more people than that is immensely exhausting for me and not very satisfying. It also explains why the whole “go to a munch” thing bothers me so deeply. It assumes things that I know to be completely false.

First, it assumes that the only place I can possibly meet someone who shares my particular kink is to schlep into some amorphous group of strangers whose membership includes anyone and everyone who identifies in some way as “kinky.” I serve as a glaring reminder that it is possible to be involved in a kinky relationship without ever going to a kinky event. Consider this myth busted because attendance at kinky events is simply not necessary. Beyond that, the membership of every single kinky group out there would have to be infinite to ensure that every kinky person could find someone compatible. It just isn’t true.

Second, it assumes that if you put two people with similar interests in close proximity that they will: 1) recognize each other; 2) feel comfortable discussing said interests; and 3) hit it off enough to make the whole thing worthwhile. In the absence of some sort of mystical vibe that allows people to magically identify each other, then the only way to identify another person’s interest is to talk to them. If there are ten people in the group and it takes three minutes to discover that any two are incompatible; then it would take twenty-seven minutes for a person to check in with all nine potential partners. This is, of course, assuming that everyone is perfectly willing to tell a stranger things like, “I enjoy having Icy-Hot rubbed on my genitalia while balancing on a strap-on dildo that is mounted on a yoga ball and inserted into my rectum while reciting classical Romanesque poetry as boiling hot coffee is dribbled over the nipple clamps that are driving a needle through my flesh.” Good luck with that.

Third, it assumes that there is no one out there like myself who simply doesn’t want to be involved in any group of people larger than half a dozen or so. At the very least, it assumes that people like myself are really fundamentally wrong about how we understand our selves and how we relate to the world. Or maybe we will be willing to pretend to be something and someone we are not in order to dupe a partner into entering a relationship with us under false pretenses – and that relationship will be rewarding and happy even though it was entered into under false pretenses and one partner may have vastly different social needs than the other and will not feel betrayed by the fact that they were misled.

Fourth, it assumes that if I do happen to meet someone who shares an interest in a particular kink, that I will like them. Here’s my reality: I don’t honestly like many people (for the record, I don’t dislike people – I’m just ambivalent towards most people…I’ll be friendly with them, but they aren’t my friends). Even people who share a lot of common ground in interests with me are often not people I’d like to spend time with.

As an example, I like to watch professional football on television – but I don’t like to watch college football at all. I don’t want to watch pro football with anyone who has a favorite team, because they tend to get upset when “their team” loses, and that’s just stupid to me. I also don’t like to hear people yell at the players, the refs, the announcers, or anyone else who is so far away they can only be viewed through an electronic device. I also don’t like to hear people talk about the game itself, other than to occasionally (maybe three times per game) remark on how exceptional a play was. (In other words, if you like to watch football; then I am sure I wouldn’t enjoy watching the game with you. Unless you like to turn the sound down, talk about literature, and eat some non-salty snacks…in which case, I’m only merely suspicious that I wouldn’t like to watch football with you.)

There are a few people I know of who are interested in F/m that I wouldn’t mind spending some time with – but that is because I find them to be interesting people without any regard to the F/m dynamics in their lives. In general, I interact with these people on Twitter and we usually talk about things like our health regiment and/or medical issues, recipes, our families, what we last read, and other such things. While I read their blogs (the ones that blog), and find their thoughts on F/m interesting (and sometimes worthy of comment – and, in fact, linked to one at the beginning of this piece), our collective friendliness isn’t about F/m. In some ways, it is the least interesting thing that we share and even though the “F/m umbrella” covers us all, there are very few similarities around which we could build actual friendships on that aspect of our lives…if any of us were actually looking to do that (which we aren’t, as far as I can tell).

In my perfect world, the scene exists for people who are interested in hanging out at clubs or restaurants or wherever and doing whatever it is they do there without anyone being violated or threatened or excluded for anything other than behavior. But in that world, I could wear a collar instead of a wedding band when I walk around town and never worry about some small minded individual saying something hurtful to the people I love because of it. I wouldn’t have to time the more painful sessions of love-making around visits to the doctor because I don’t want the office to suspect spousal abuse. I wouldn’t have to be pressured to be in a closet or to come out of it. I would be free to live an open and transparent life about those things I want to share and no one would give a damn about those things I don’t share.

Perfect isn’t going to happen, though. So I will settle for a world where my boys can grow up to be men who find their sexuality to be fulfilling and affirming. No one would ever challenge them and they would never feel any shame for whatever leads them into a lifelong loving relationship. At very least, I will settle for a world where that is the message they receive from their father, and when they run into problems, they will know that there is always someone they can turn to who will love them for exactly the persons they are, and who they are always becoming.

*This doesn’t include family reunion type events like holidays where a ton of people may show up. Those are fine for three or four times per year – you know, special occasions.

Last minute gift idea

Ravenous Romance has a new anthology of holiday themed erotica – The Twelve Days of Kink-mas. Not only is it a bargain at $7, but it includes a story from yours-truly.

Not entirely quiet

I just wanted to let everyone know that I haven’t dropped off the face of the earth. I’ve been working on some writing projects, and that has taken my focus off of this page.

If you haven’t already, take a look at the Erotica for Sale page. That will give you some idea of what I’ve been doing. And it’s cheap!

You don’t HAVE to be out

I recently came across an online discussion that started with the question “Why don’t male subs attend events?” It had actually started two years ago, run its course, and stopped. It received a bit of attention here and there, but a few days ago it became active again.

That question has as many answers as there are guys who don’t go to events. The reason really doesn’t matter. What bothers me is the response that guys get when they give a reason for not going to public events – because the vast majority of them were along the lines of, “There is no valid reason for not going to events. You are a sad loser who deserves to be a sad loser if you don’t go to events. So shut up, you sad loser, or go to an event.”

I called the group on developing a bully mentality. Of course, this was immediately met by a chorus of denials. “We aren’t bullying people. We are just trying to force them to do something we want. If it is something that scares them or might damage their professional life; then they just need to man up. What matters is that they do what we want.”

How is that not being a bully?

The original question seemed to be asking for an honest answer. Perhaps enough honest answers from submales about why they are staying away in droves would provide event organizers with some ideas on how to attract them. However, when honest answers (or what appear to be honest answers) are offered; then what happens is someone – or a chorus of someones – seems to feel the need to tear apart the reasons that have been offered. Exactly how does this promote communication?

The answer is that it doesn’t.

From my limited sample of reading other submissive guys’ answers, it seems that a lot of them don’t go to events because they PERCEIVE that they will be treated as second-class citizens. Even if those perceptions are totally false, they are going to use them as a gauge because that is all they have. Simply telling them that their perceptions are wrong is not going to really convince them. Telling them that they are wrong and pointing out that they are a sad, strange little man who is very lonely will only make them feel attacked, and they will clam up.

The fact is that there is a very vocal group of BDSM’ers who seem to believe that the proper answer to every question is: “Just go to a munch!” They say this based on their history, and it’s valid beyond impeachment for them. But they either can’t or won’t see that their history, and their current life, isn’t what some people want or need.

Let’s pretend there are two types of people in the world. Joiners like to go to social events, like munches, because they like being around people and meeting people and they can almost always find someone who is interesting and fun to talk to. Shunners are people who don’t like to go to social events, like munches, because they don’t like being around people, especially people they don’t know, and who usually find being in groups to be hard work and anxiety-inducing and they rarely, if ever, find someone who is fun and exciting to talk to.

If you call them “introverts” and “extroverts” it probably makes more sense, but I don’t like those terms for reasons that don’t belong in this post. For now, there are two kinds of people.

Joiners generally have no problem getting their social needs met, as should be obvious. Shunners, on the other hand, have major problems. Rather than berating Shunners for not being Joiners, or at least not behaving like Joiners every so often, why don’t we ask Shunners what would make them feel more comfortable in joining a group that shares an interest with them?

Or, better yet, why not drop this insistence that everyone become part of a group in the first place? BDSM activities are very personal for a lot of people, and they have no desire to associate with other people based solely on BDSM. It doesn’t matter why they don’t want to. It’s THEIR LIFE. They get to choose if they are out or not.

We have to quit trying to force everyone to conform to what works for us. I love submitting to Mistress Delila, and I think that the F/m dynamic we have is wonderful and amazing and it makes both of us feel loved and appreciated and unique. But I wouldn’t suggest that EVERYONE try it. It’s a shoe that doesn’t fit on everyone. Even within the subgroup that practices F/m lifestyles, very few people would feel comfortable with the exact level that we have found. That’s why it’s so wonderful that the two of us found each other – or why any two people who are in love discover each other.

In the end, a closet is simply a compartment. Living in a compartment built by someone else is stifling and hurtful. But living in a compartment that allows a person to have a peaceful and fulfilling life is, by definition, peaceful and fulfilling.

Rape

Kink in Exile has a truly beautifully written post concerning a disagreement she had with a loved-one about her concern with being raped and his concern with being falsely accused of rape. I love it because it goes beyond the simple “yes/no” dichotomy of whether or not someone does or doesn’t support a means of anonymously reporting rape and rapists in the hope that it will prevent the further victimization of innocent people (and I say “people” instead of “women” because men can also be the victim of rape). I love it because she is unyielding in her beliefs, while allowing herself to feel the pain of seeing the issue from the other viewpoint.

I also love it because she is right when she concludes, “…we can talk about your fear, we can honor that and we can work through it, but your fear does not trump mine. It certainly doesn’t trump my safety.” Safety is vital, both for individuals and society. Psychologist Abraham Maslow put it as the second only to physiological needs (food, water, breathing, excretion) as a fundamental building block of everything humans need and do.

The issue of safety and rape are intrinsically intertwined, because (as should be obvious) it is impossible to be safe when one is afraid of being raped. It is all too easy for men to joke about rape because they, in general, do not feel the threat that women do. We don’t get cat-called walking down the street. We don’t have people rubbing against us in the subway. Rape is a legitimate threat for both sexes, but it is far and away a bigger threat to women.

This is an issue that hits extremely close to my heart. My mother has suffered her entire life from repeated rapes when she was a teenager. My brother and I were both raped as children (“molested” is just a clinical way to say “rape). A few years ago, my adult daughter called from Florida to tell me that she had been raped the night before. Rape is not something that is merely theoretical to me. It is personal.

The answer to stopping rape is to teach boys (because men account for 99% of rapists) that it is never okay to force their sexuality on someone. It shouldn’t matter if a woman does an erotic strip-tease – until and unless she indicates that she is available as sexual partner, she isn’t. Even then, she is only available in the ways that she wants to be available. As soon as she says it’s done; it’s done, with no questions asked.

The reason I am bringing this up is that I was accused, point blank, of being “no different than rapists” because I defended the F/m dynamic that Mistress Delila and I have. Yes, I said that Mistress Delila has the right to order me to take out the garbage, perform car maintenance, and wash dishes (those are the precise examples I used) even if I don’t enjoy it – and that means that She is a rapist.

It should be pointed out that the person making these claims is also a person who is providing a way for people to anonymously report that they were raped or coerced into having sex. This is a person who has argued, most vociferously, that false accusations of rape happen so rarely that they are not ever a legitimate reason to oppose what he is doing. Yet here he is, in effect, making a false accusation of rape against the woman I love for doing precisely what I have provided enthusiastic consent for her to do.

There is a saying that, “Where you stand in life determines where you stand on the issues.” Well, today I stand accused of having the mindset of a rapist and being in love with a female rapist. I now have a reason to oppose the anonymous database of sex offenders because it now threatens my safety.

It is no secret that law enforcement agencies are not exactly enthusiastic supporters of civil rights with regards to BDSM relationships. In recent years – THANKFULLY – reports of domestic abuse have become impossible for the police to ignore. By accusing Mistress Delila of being a rapist, and accusing me of holding that exact mindset, we have been put at legitimate risk for interference in our personal life by local law enforcement agencies. Exactly how much of a threat it is depends only on the ability and determination for a very tech-savvy person to track us down and alert the authorities to an on-going criminal activity (because rape is a crime, and by this person’s own words, if you aren’t doing everything possible to stop it; then you are actively condoning it).

This is not just an idle threat, it is the active and intentionally attempt to bully us into silence. Why? Because we dare to live our lives according to the dictates of our own hearts and according to the agreements that we have reached together over what is and is not allowed to happen within our relationship. We do not live up to someone else’s definition of what is “right” so we are rapists. We are criminals.

Let me be EXTREMELY clear on this: There is no rape that occurs in our relationship. Neither of us would condone or tolerate such an action, or even the consideration of such an action. Neither of us have even the slightest attraction to the “consensual non-consent” stuff. We don’t have a safeword (which is only as effective as the Dominant partner’s commitment to observing it) because we both believe that it isn’t needed when I can simply say, “Stop!” or “No more!” or any of a thousand other verbal and non-verbal cues that would tell Her that things have gone too far.

When we first began our relationship, we were challenged on what we meant when we said “TOTAL control.” My reply is that it means anything and everything we want it to mean. Since we are both sane individuals, it does not cover things that are patently insane or so fantastical that they would never happen. We live in a real world, and our fantasies are built around the things we enjoy and the pleasure we give each other. There is no need to build contingency plans for things that are impossible. I was very careful to pick someone who is not sociopathic before I pledged my unyielding obedience and unflinching service.

By the way, we have discussed what would happen if the impossible happened. We agree that either of us creeping into any dangerous territory would be enough to insist on a complete medical and psychological examination. So not only do we have multiple safeguards in place – including an incredible level of communication, the likes of which I’ve never experienced with anyone – but we have as much of a plan for the impossible as can be done.

Safety is paramount for every human being. No one person’s safety trumps another’s. Yes, we must do everything we can to prevent rape. But it has just been demonstrated how easy it is to threaten someone with anonymous accusations. So, I won’t ask forgiveness for insisting that due process of law be afforded to those who are accused.

That is where I stand.

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 52 other followers