Marriage, Gender Roles and Ephesians 5&6

Okay, folks. This is one of the biggies. I apologize in advance for the length, but please stick with me here. This is foundational.

I've been putting this post off for some time in the hopes that at some point I would get really inspired and write these ideas perfectly. Well, the other day I wrote an e-mail to a fellow on one of the Yahoo! Groups I'm a member of and I thought I laid it out pretty well. Maybe not perfectly, but well enough to get started. Well enough that I got to the end and said, "Whew! I really don't want to re-write that for a ruddy blog post!" So, here you have it, in all its copied and pasted glory.

Gender roles are a big deal among many Christians, but thy are an especially big deal among Christians who practice D/s and BDSM. The cause for this is that, whist frantically searching the pages of their Bibles for Scriptural "justification" for being interested in these things, what should leap first to the eyes of well-intentioned believers but, "Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands as to the Lord." And on the eleventh day, the Lord said, "Let religious misogyny and bigotry flow forth from every corner of the Church!"

I think not.

I will talk more (probably much more) about the pitfalls and problems in the "Christian BDSM" and "Christian Domestic Discipline" subcultures in the future. Right now, let's stick to a little thing I like to call (to gank a book title) "reading the Bible for all it's worth." That is to say, I feel that far too many people - Christian and otherwise - read Bible passages purely at face value. This either causes them to say, "Well, that makes no sense!" and throw the book away or to say, "Well, gee...if God says that's the way it is, that's the way it is." and throw reason away.

There is another way.

Now, many people will go to the original Hebrew and Greek and seek meaning by trying to understand the nuances of those languages (or by just pointing to paricular definitions that suit their ends). This is not sufficient in itself either. When seeking to understand the Bible, I need to ask "Who wrote this? Who were they writing to? In what historical and cultural epoch were they writing? What was their intent?" and "What principles can be derrived here that most accurately reflect how the passage's intended meaning has impact in today's context?"

Do I always do this? No. But the following is one ongoing effort to understand. The passage I'll be discussing runs from the end of Ephesians 5 into the beginning of Ephesians 6. This is one of the most commonly quoted "Wives, submit..." passages. This is also just my opinion - what I think I see happening in the text and what makes the most logical sense to me. I reserve the right to be completely wrong. If you disagree, I still love you. :)

First, here's the text, taken from one of my favourite translations, the NET Bible.

5:22 ³¹ Wives, submit ³² to your husbands as to the Lord, 5:23 because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he himself being the savior of the body. 5:24 But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 5:25 Husbands, love your ³³ wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her 5:26 to sanctify her by cleansing her ³⁴ with the washing of the water by the word, 5:27 so that he ³⁵ may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. ³⁶ 5:28 In the same way ³⁷ husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 5:29 For no one has ever hated his own body ³⁸ but he feeds it and takes care of it, just as Christ also does the church, 5:30 for we are members of his body. ³⁹ 5:31 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will become ⁴⁰ one flesh. ⁴¹ 5:32 This mystery is great – but I am actually ⁴² speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 5:33 Nevertheless, ⁴³ each one of you must also love his own wife as he loves himself, ⁴⁴ and the wife must ⁴⁵ respect ⁴⁶ her husband.

6:1 Children, ¹ obey your parents in the Lord ² for this is right. 6:2 “Honor your father and mother,” ³ which is the first commandment accompanied by a promise, namely, 6:3 “that it may go ⁴ well with you and that you will live ⁵ a long time on the earth.” ⁶

6:4 Fathers, ⁷ do not provoke your children to anger, ⁸ but raise them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

6:5 Slaves, ⁹ obey your human masters ¹⁰ with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart as to Christ, 6:6 not like those who do their work only when someone is watching ¹¹ – as people-pleasers – but as slaves of Christ doing the will of God from the heart. ¹² 6:7 Obey ¹³ with enthusiasm, as though serving the Lord ¹⁴ and not people, 6:8 because you know that each person, whether slave or free, if he does something good, this ¹⁵ will be rewarded by the Lord.

6:9 Masters, ¹⁶ treat your slaves ¹⁷ the same way, ¹⁸ giving up the use of threats, ¹⁹ because you know that both you and they have the same master in heaven, ²⁰ and there is no favoritism with him.

Much of the talk about this passage centers around the Greek word (hupotasso, if memory serves) that is usually translated as "submit" or "obey." Everyone talks about that word. I really don't care to. I don't think it's the point of the passage at all. I think Paul is interested in re-contextualizing existing Dominant/submissive structures. Look at Ephesians 5&6.

5:22 is the "Wives, submit..." that everyone loves to quote. But 5:21 talks about "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ." The passages before are discussing how we live as Christians - not as unwise but as wise (5:15), as children of the Light (5:8).

So, after Paul says Christians should submit to one another in 5:21, in 5:22 he begins listing examples of what submitting to one another looks like. He does this through examples based in everyday authority structures, specifically the authority structures in the home. This makes sense because a statement like "submit to one another" is pretty radical in a society that is so strongly defined by hierarchy.

His examples seem to follow this pattern: "Here's a common authority structure. Now, here's how to live in that structure in Christ." It doesn't stop at the end of Chapter 5. Everyone gets to the end of the chapter and says, "Well, that's all he had to say about marriage!" But chapter breaks are arbitrary structures added to the original text by later editors. Connect the wives and husbands passage with the two following: 6:1-4 talks to parents and children and 6:5-9 addresses slaves and masters. Each passage moves further out from the center of the home and family - the marriage.

It's clear to me that these are three points connected by the same theme - a new understanding of authority and leadership in Christ. These passages are not dictating who is to be in charge, but describing how each member of an extant Dominant/submissive dynamic is to conduct themselves. Let's look at the sections in reverse.

First, "Slaves, obey your masters" (6:5-9). Everyone says the "Wives, submit" section establishes God's plan for marriage. So, is this God's plan for slavery? Modern scholars and pastors usually say, "Well, we don't have slavery in our society, but we can extrapolate this to employer/employee relationships or some such model." No one ever says, "We don't have strictly patriarchal marriages in this society, but we can extrapolate this to a matriarchal or egalitarian marriage model." Why is that? Why treat these two passages so differently? One is God's stamp of approval on marriage, but the other is not God ordaining slavery? It makes no sense.

Secondly, does God need Paul to tell us that slaves are to obey their masters? Is this some new Divine command? Of course not! In Paul's day, slavery was common and slaves were of course expected to obey. Since in Christ there is now neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, early Christians might expect these social structures to need total upheaval. Paul says, however, that Earthly authority structures are a part of the way we live, but as Christians, we can now view authority differently.

This is because God condescended to become human in that Christ, being of one nature with God, did not see equality with God as something to be attained. Rather, he humbled himself and took on the very nature of a slave. He became submissive even unto death on a cross and because of this God has given him a name that is above every name. (I'm here slightly paraphrasing Philippians 2:5-11.)

If Jesus shows that he is Lord of all creation by humbling himself and becoming like a slave, then our understanding of authority must change drastically. As Jesus says in Matthew 20, beginning in verse 25, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in high positions use their authority over them. It must not be this way among you! Instead whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Gee, I've seen that on the front page of a blog somewhere...)

Now let's look at the next passage up in Ephesians 6, verses 1-4. Does anyone question that children need to obey their parents? Of course not. It's how they survive and learn. In the same way, no one in Paul's day would have questioned whether wives should obey their husbands. This was their expected cultural role both inside and outside the Jewish world. None of these passages describes a Dominant/submissive dynamic that is unique to Christians or even to the Bible. All of these were commonplace in Paul's day. What's important is the next section of each passage, where Paul sets common assumptions about authority on their heads.

To me, this section follows a pattern of "Description and Prescription." That is, a description of a common authority structure from daily life is given, followed by a prescription for how that structure should look under Christ. To my mind, this is not God commanding all women in every marriage for all time to submit to their husbands. This is God through Paul telling us that Dominant/submissive relationships involve both parties putting the others' needs before their own, regardless of where such a structure is to be found.

So, to paraphrase: "Wives, submit to your husbands. That is understood. It's how a wife is expected to honour her husband in our culture. But now you are in Christ, so your submission should be as unto the Lord, for you honour and worship the Lord by loving your husband well in a way that brings him respect. But husbands, you are not to be domineering and disrespectful to your wives as so many in our world are prone to do. Do not abuse your authority. Rather reconize that no one has authority on Earth except that God allows him to have it and you are under Christ's authority. You must indeed love your wives, as is expected, but you must do so as Christ loves us. He gave himself completely for us, surrendered himself to death for us. He is our Lord because he knelt to wash his disciples' feet. You too should follow his example and honour him by loving your wives well."

In today's culture, the passage might read differently. Instead of laying the idea of the submissive wife over universally into all modern marriages, we should recognize that the point of this passage and indeed this whole section is back in verse 5:21: "submit to one another." It seems that this passage is talking about a way of serving one another that supercedes, yet is translated through whatever relational structure we find ourselves in - even those that have a definite hierarchy and authority structure.

Reading this verse today, we might ask, "How does a wife honour her husband in today's culture? How does a husband honour his wife? What does this look like in my marriage relationship and what can I do to love my husbsband or wife well in a way that is relevant for me like this structure was relevant in Paul's day?"

You may find yourself saying, "Well, my husband is my slave," or "My wife is submissive to me." Or you may see other structures evident. All of these can be encompassed by the values espoused here.

The truth is, no two relationships are alike. We function according to certain parameters and negotiations of dominance and submission in every relationship (check out my blog post "D/s - Fixed, Flexible and Fundamental" for more on this) and these parameters and negotiations are as different as the people in each relationship. Even in strongly patriarchal societies - Jewish, Greek, etc. - in many cases, the women are so often the real movers and shakers in the family. They have just worked out the art of getting their way and setting the agenda, making all the decisions and letting the husband believe it was his idea!

In human relationships, different Dominant/submissive structures work best for different people - otherwise we wouldn't still be discussing these things today. The bottom line, though, is love. Whether we are Dominant or submissive, without this we have nothing.

My Response to Faete

Well, I'm sorry you had trouble commenting, but look what a lovely post it turned into! ;)

I personally love the use of caps and lowercase for Doms and subs. As both a Dominant and a submissive, it does help me get into the right "head space" as you say. I also understand how lowercasing could be assumed to indicate a lack of self-worth to the outside world. But Ziggy lowercases himself all the time and he's doing okay - He has his own comic strip!

Seriously, though, I heartily agree that, though "no slave is greater than his master," a slave or submissive is not "less" than his/her Master or Dominant. And certainly lowercasing personal pronouns is not meant to communicate that. On the contrary, I think it is quite the opposite.

When a sub caps his/her Dominant, the intent is obviously to show respect. So, it's easy for people to believe (and this may be why the practice is falling out of favor with some) that lowercasing is a show of humiliation or scorn. But I see lowercasing as a very important way to respect a submissive's position. Whenever I'm communicating with a sub (as you well know, Faete!) I am always careful to notice if they lowercase themselves. If they do, I make sure I do the same. To do otherwise, to my mind, is an insult because it fails to recognize their honoured place as a submissive.

I believe that submissives and slaves are deserving of honour just as much as Dominants, Masters and Mistresses. This is indeed a Biblical concept, in that Christ demonstrated His authority by humbling Himself. His act of sacrificing His own life was the supreme act of submission, for which God has given him "a name that is above every name." He literally took on the cultural trappings of a slave in order to wash his disciples' feet and told them that the greatest anong them must be the slave of all. So, there is an exalted place for those in submission, a respect they are due.

Paul echoes this too in his words to wives, children and slaves in Ephesians, among other things. But, that's another post altogether. Pardon me as I get ahead of myself!

I can understand aesthetic objections and that such things may not be appropriate for public use. But I am very strict about it when I am in a Dominant position and very careful about it as a submissive because I see it as an underlying show of respect. It's like a way of encoding one's words with honour for the O/other.

So, though I might differ in my use of role-specific lowercasing and caps, I agree with the principles that drive your decision not to. A tiny thing, but a demonstration of the fact that people with the same values can often come to different conclusions. This is a lesson more Christians need to learn. :)

Now, all I need are some non-gendered English perssonal pronouns so I can stop doing the he/she, his/her bit all the time. That one really annoys me!

Thanks again for your thoughtful comment, Faete. Looking forward to your future thoughts!

Comment from Faete

A fellow YouTuber nemed Faete stopped by the other day and tried to leave a great comment on my post "S&M, D/s, M/s, B&D and BDSM" - a post which, in retrospect, should simply have been titled, "Terminology and Acronyms" or something. Anyway, her comment attempt was unsucessful, so she pasted it into an e-mail to me. I decided I would include it here as a post so that more readers would be likely to see it. I like what she has to say and I'll comment on it in my next post. By the way, her YouTube channel can be found HERE. Check it out. And now...Heeeeeere's Faete!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Howdy! Me likey your blog. ;) It's going to take me some time to catch up on it all though! lol. :)

Anyway, I did want to chime in about the whole capitalization topic. Personally, I've never really liked the trend of submissives/slaves/bottoms/etc putting lower case initials or "i" instead of "I". To be honest, it just makes things clunky to read to me when I look and see a whole bunch of o/Our or u/Us or "i"s.

I know a lot of people use this to get themselves into the right headspace. And that's great if it works for them.

Personally though, I can see where the idea came from - and if used in the proper context I feel like it could be fun. For example, if Master wanted me to always do this when I was typing or writing to him, I would. However, I wouldn't write that way in a public forum because it insinuates that I see myself as lower in importance than the rest of the world.

I don't see BDSM like that. I don't see myself as less important than Master.. Just different. In the end, no matter if I like to be *treated* like I am worthless, or an object, or beneath him it doesn't mean I am. At the end of the day, we are both equals because without me being his slave, he would not be my Master. The same is obviously true vice versa.

So, that's my take on it. I'm Faete, not faete. I just wanted to throw that out there because I didn't see anything about *why* some people are getting away from that habit.

Cool blog! :) Keep the good posts coming. :)
Mew,
Faete
=^_^=

Bondslaves of Christ on YouTube!

It's official. My YouTube channel is now going to be updated with video blog content. I've been on YouTube for some time, but had not yet begun creating a presence there in earnest.

The YouTube channel will be an extension of what I'm doing here in the blog. The two will sometimes overlap, sometimes not, but they will always compliment each other.

Check it out HERE and don't forget to SUBSCRIBE!

Dominance vs. Domination

I've touched on this before, but I want to re-emphasize something about the language I use when referring to the "Top" position. You will almost never hear me use the words "Dominate" or "Domination." Okay, you'll never hear anything here. You'll only read it. But that's beside the point.

Some years ago, I made an effort to alter my vocabulary and reject the word "Domination" in favor of "Dominance." To me, Domination implies something cruel and crushing. Particularly in the BDSM world, we get the mental image of the sleek black high heel of the Mistress' boot coming down on the poor slaveboy who is in agony - a picture of the power of pain. Domination is a term used in phrases like "World Domination," the dream of every megalomaniacal super villain. To me, it implies something that is taken by force through violence, without caring or love.

Of course, this is based on what I percieve to be the culturally-derrived implication of the word. In the dictionary, there is no real difference between "dominance" and "domination." In fact, dominance is referred to as something in the animal kingdom that is usually achieved by force. But in the human kingdom, for whatever reason, it seems to me that dominance is the gentler term.

The reason I favor this angle on things is because I think the best, truest Dominant earns their position and title. It is a role that comes with a great deal of responsibility and which must be based on and executed with love. Otherwise, there is little left to guard against abuse.

Most of the time, these men who lurk around online and in clubs with arrogant demeanors and floggers on their belts calling themseves "Master" this and "Master" that do not deserve such a title because they have not earned it. Beware of those who seek to Dominate what they do not love.

So, I encourage you, gentle reader - if you agree with me, please join my proverbial bandwagon of terminology rejection. It's a small thing but, in D/s, it's the little things that make all the difference.

Dirty Babe...

Okay, I've been thinking about the lyrics to the Justin Timberlake song "Sexyback." Firstly, they're a great example of the appeal of sadomasochism, D/s, BDSM and fetishism in our culture. The reason? What are the lyrics everyone who is familiar with that song knows? Sing along, boys and girls:

Dirty babe,
You see these shackles, baby,
I'm your slave.
I'll let you whip me if I
misbehave.

Just like the popularity of Britney Spears' "I'm a Slave 4 U" a few years back was based in no small part on the fantasy of Britney as a sexy slave saying, "I really want to do what you want me to," the popularity of this particular part of the song reflects the attraction of the sexy slave image.

But I think it's interesting to note some subtleties in the lyrics. First, the opening line, "Dirty babe." It's true that much of the attraction of the sexy slave archetype comes from it being seen as "dirty" or "taboo." It's exciting for many people to take the risk of flirting wth what is often referred to as "the dark side" of sexuality. The idea of being risky and naughty can be fun and exciting.

Unfortunately, for many Christians, this causes kinky behaviours to be labeled as sinful or impermissible. This, of course, causes Christians to feel guilty for their interests in D/s, bondage and discipline. While I certainly dislike the idea of these things being seen as "bad" behaviours, it is also important to remember that it really is fun to feel a little naughty sometimes - and that's okay too!

The other line that I often think about is "I'll let you whip me if I misbehave." I can just see a Domme or Mistress standing over him looking quite annoyed and saying, "Oh, you'll let me whip you, will you? Well, how thoughtful!" All I can say is that a boy who talks like that deserves whatever he gets.

It's not the kind of thing any Master or Mistress wants to hear out of a slave's mouth. "I'll let you whip me" - what arrogance! The scene being painted here, however, is not one of serious slavery, but rather just flirting with ideas, archetypes and actions that are fun, sexy and risky. Many in the BDSM community would frown on this, saying he really doesn't deserve to be called a slave. They would say he isn't a "real" slave. Essentially, he's not "one of us."

Well, who cares? In reality, these things are fun to play with. They don't adhere to rules and are not about fitting in with the idiosyncratic notions of a particular subculture. We don't all need to be members of the BDSM cult. Some of us just want to have fun, exploring things relationally and sexually that excite and interest us. And there's no one who can tell us we can't.

Swimmin' in de Nile...

Denial.

Get it? Sorry.

Denial is a very important concept. I got to thinking about this after watching this video. Dr. Gabrielle Hoff does really insightful interviews with a D/s or BDSM theme in her video series called "Erotic Powerplay". Here, the topic is female dominance, but the concept is universal.

A Dominant must always remember that, in any given moment of D/s interaction, it is the Dominant's desires and agenda that rule. I stress communication a lot and it is good for the submissive to communicate his or her desires, but a subbie mustn't expect the Dominant to give in. At least not right away. you subbies must respect that your Dom/me holds all the cards. That means you won't always get what you want.

In fact, Dom/mes, you have a great deal of power in saying "no." There are few things that teach an over-eager submissive their place better than denying them what they want. A lot of people might readily accept a submissive role thinking, "If I become submissive, maybe He'll spank me," or "I can finally get her to tie me up!" These kinds of a agendas put the submissive's desires before the Dominant's.

As referred to in the video, this is often called "topping from the bottom." It can be a real trap that many people fall into, but it can also indicate some subtle differences between people's tastes. Often, a person wants to be punished or disciplined and that's pretty much it. They are interested in serving the Dominant only in so much as it leads to a spanking or a flogging or some such event. Often, these people are masochists who are really misidentifying themselves (or being misidentified by others) as submissives. This is a possibility all involved must take into account early on. If you try to make a non-submissive masochist into a slave, there will be misery all around - and not the good kind, either! ;)

Of you are dealing with a real submissive, though, there is enormous power in denial. It is actually much more exciting and humbling to be denied what you want than to have it given to you. It may seem counter-intuitive to not give the sub what he/she wants when you are trying to keep them happy, but not giving in is often more gratifying to a submissive heart than whatever it is they think they so desperately desire. You must teach your subbie that Your desires rule. Your sub's desire should be first for your pleasure, your happiness. Then, Dom/mes, when you finally decide to give your little subbie what he/she wants for him/herself - Oh, what a treat! Much subbie love will abound.

So, today's Domming tip: Stay in control. Learn the power of denial. Put your subbie on a string of desire and tug them right along. If they aren't already eating out of your hand, they will be. ;)

Apologies for the Delay

Just wanted to let my readers know that I am still here. I've been called upon for some new responsibilities over the past couple of months and I've not spent nearly as much time writing as I would like.

The "Porn-Free Response" series will be postponed for the time being. I need to reinforce some sections that will take some work. I will focus first, then, on continuing the "Principles of Dominance" series. Part 2 should be up soon.

Also, I may be adding other smaller posts on occasion between installments of a series. I had intended to do these series without interruption, but I don't think that is practical for maintaining a regular blog.

My goal is to return to weekly updates, though I probably will have to work up to that. Please stay around and do contribute any ideas, thoughts or questions you may have. Thank you for reading!

bondslavesofchrist@yahoo.com

Principles of Dominance Part 1 - Communication

This series is not my attempt at setting a definition for all people, places and times of what good Dominance is. This is just what has worked in my experience. Please comment or e-mail with any additional thoughts or questions you may have. I would be happy to elaborate or discuss any of these things further by e-mail or in future posts.

There are five principles in this series, though if listed differently there could be more. Number One is:

1. Communication

Communication is a vital element of any relationship. In a Dominant/submissive relationship, however, it is the single most important element. That might seem an odd thing to say as our general tendency is to say that love is the most essential ingredient in a relationship. Remember, however, that love may not necessarily be a part of a Dominant/submissive dynamic. Certainly in our context here I am generally discussing loving D/s dynamics, but certain D/s structures (such as the military) do not necessarily include love.

Additionally, love is the under-girding or governing principle assumed when we are specifically discussing loving D/s relationships, but it is communication that makes a relationship a D/s relationship. In the Dominant/submissive dynamic, communication is not just the skills of listening to others and effectively expressing oneself. It is the basic rubric for the relationship. Without communication, Dominance and submission simply cannot exist.

For the Dominant, communication is an ongoing process that lies at the heart of Dominance itself. Quite essentially, Dominance is about communicating expectations to another in such a way as to compel the other to meet those expectations. In the basic structure of command/obedience, no one gets anywhere unless the Dominant is clearly communicating commands.

Of course, there is so much more that the Dominant communicates and many ways in which He or She does so. I will list a few as I see them.


Atmospheric/Environmental - These forms of communication are largely aesthetic in nature and do not always pertain to every D/s relationship. However, virtually all D/s relationships carry some form of this dynamic.

The environment a Dominant creates for a submissive might entail creating and decorating some dungeon or lair in which the Dominant wishes to be served. Lighting, furniture, wall treatments, floors and many other considerations may be under the Dominant's direct control. Other Dominants may use environmental considerations by selecting certain times and places, public or private, in which to meet with their submissive. These considerations can communicate volumes to a submissive without the Dominant saying a word. Depending on agreed-upon protocols, choosing a very public place may mean that certain formalities are done away with or that the submissive may be on display, even open to being given some embarrassing commands.

In a controlled environment, plants and flowers may communicate a nurturing dynamic. Harsh stone walls could communicate imprisonment or torture. At home, turning out the lights might put a submissive on guard or a Dominant Husband or Wife might choose to order the submissive partner to the bedroom to communicate an intimate encounter.

Additionally, how the Dominant presents Herself or Himself in dress, mood, stature and mystique can go a long way toward engendering the right attitude in the submissive. This may be especially emphasized by the Dominant's control of the submissive's attire. A Dominant in a suit or other "power clothing" might have a submissive wear raggedy shorts and t-shirt or nothing at all, implying a strong power dynamic that shows the submissive his or her place. These are just a few examples, but the idea is clear.

Triggers - These are very simple protocol tools that quickly and easily communicate common commands. Some may be words; others may be gestures or postures. "Here" might imply, "Get over here and kneel in this spot." The same might be communicated by a snap of the fingers.

A Dominant may sit with His or Her feet extended, implying a command for the removal of shoes or a massage. Putting a submissive in a certain position may be effective in "turning on" their submissive side, preparing them to serve. A trigger is essentially any established shorthand between Dominant and submissive.

Contracts - Some people use them, others don't. But contracts can be an effective way of communicating general expectations, limits of control, boundaries and conditions for ending or modifying a structured D/s relationship. Contracts are most commonly used between slaves and Masters to clearly establish consent and boundaries.


Of course, the most common forms of communication are the usual words and gestures we all use. As you will see, however, every other principle of Dominance I will be discussing here is a form of communication. The same is true of parallel principles of submission.

And that's an important element as well: Communication goes both ways.

I think a lot of Dominants are very interested in making their expectations clear to their submissives and that is very important. But one of the most important things a Dominant can train into a submissive is the freedom to communicate. A Dominant has to know how He or She is affecting the submissive. Many subs don't feel it's their place to "complain" or that their opinions are not important. But a submissive does a disservice to his or her Dominant when needs and feelings are not communicated.

Of course, the Dominant sets the rules and protocols, so it is up to Him or Her to create an environment in which the submissive is expected to bring problems or concerns to the Dominant's attention. Failure to allow for this - indeed to encourage it - is irresponsible. A submissive cannot be held responsible for not communicating when their Dominant has not given them the permission and expectation to do so. See my post "A Letter From Sean" for a real life example of communication difficulties.

The essential point here is that I must be mindful as a Dominant that it is my job to constantly maintain the flow of communication, to be clear about my expectations, to communicate whether those expectations were met to My satisfaction and to listen to My submissive, encouraging her to let Me know where she is mentally and emotionally and to bring any issues to My attention. There is a diligence required of the Dominant that we will see as a common thread throughout this series. But if the Dominant is diligent first and foremost about communication, many of the rest of these essentials will fall into place.

Two New Series

In the coming days and weeks, I will be beginning two new series of posts. The first is called "Principles of Dominance" and will be discussing what I believe to be the five basic principles or "pillars" that comprise the core of good Dominance. This will also provide something of an outline for laying the structural groundwork of a Dominant/submissive relationship.

The second series is called "Porn-Free Response." It's actually something I wrote years ago - a detailed response to a lengthy "Biblical" criticism of BDSM from the website porn-free.org. I will be posting it in pieces because it is quite long and because I am tweaking and updating it as I go. To me, a Christian defense of D/s and BDSM begins with the idea that the burden of proof is on the Prosecution. I think it is first up to Christian critics to prove that there is something wrong with D/s and BDSM, not up to me and other Christians to prove that they are acceptable behaviours. The Porn-Free article represents a typical Christian viewpoint and (I think) miserably fails to make a strong case.

Both of these series will be starting soon, so please watch for them.

S&M, D/s, M/s, B&D and BDSM

I'd like to clarify, for those who may be interested, what is meant by the various acronyms bandied about (particularly online) regarding Dominance and submission, bondage, discipline and fetishism. What few people realize is how distinctly different from one another these acronyms are, as are the people whose interests they represent.

S&M - I don't see this one used as much as it used to be. It was much more en vogue in the 80s and 90s. But, it is still in use and is certainly still relevant. S&M stands for Sadism and Masochism. This refers quite specifically to the giving and receiving of pain for pleasure. The masochist enjoys pain and the sadist enjoys delivering pain. This term came to be used to describe the whole fetish/kinky subculture and the popularized black leather aesthetic associated with it for quite some time. Very specifically, though, the term only properly refers to the giving and receiving of pain.

One note here about the use of the words "sadist" and "sadism." I do not believe that enjoying the act of causing others to suffer is healthy. Most properly, this is what sadism refers to - delighting in the suffering of others. In healthy fetish play and kink, however, the pleasure of the one giving the pain should be derived from the pleasure of the one receiving it.

As such, that person should be concerned first and foremost with the safety and pleasure of the masochist. Otherwise, things can get dangerous, out of hand and even criminal. The term "sadist," like many terms in this subculture, is (to my thinking) somewhat poorly chosen. But it is the accepted term and therefore must be distinguished in its subcultural form from its clinical definition. Failure to recognize the subtleties of the subcultural definition of terms causes much of the confusion and misunderstanding surrounding these interests and activities.

D/s - I've already covered this one at some length in my previous post. Most commonly, it stands for Domination and submission. Here, it's important to say a word about capitalization. Particularly in online communities and among chat groups, the practice of capitalizing the initial letter of all names and personal pronouns for Dominants and lower-casing the same for submissives is very common. Apparently, newer generations are not as often holding to this perceived formality, but I am a big fan of it. It shows respect for both roles and recognizes those roles in a way that can even be covertly done in more "vanilla" chats and communications. I'll talk more on "capping" later.

But back to D/s. I prefer to use the term "Dominance and submission" as opposed to "Domination and submission." This is because the word "Domination" can often have a negative and cruel connotation. I strongly emphasize Dominance as a loving, caring act and want to avoid the image of the mean Dominant inflicting pain mercilessly. While that can be fun, it's only one way.

D/s is just shorthand for any focused, strongly Dominant/submissive dynamic. It does not have to refer to any activities that are commonly considered "kinky," such as bondage or spanking. There need not necessarily be pain involved in any way. A D/s relationship can encompass all or none of the usual fetishistic images of pain and bondage or the Master and slave roles generally associated with them. It can simply be a relationship where one person is in charge and the other obeys the orders and/or serves the desires of the Dominant.

Let me emphasize one more time, also, that a D/s relational dynamic needn't be a sexual or romantic contract. It can be a mentoring relationship and many other things. It can indicate either a relationship (that is, D/s as the primary way in which two people relate) or roleplay (that is, a fantasy dynamic within a relationship not primarily characterized by D/s roles). D/s dynamics permeate our lives as the negotiation of Dominant and submissive roles is a fundamental element of human relationships. See my previous post for more info.

M/s - This stands for "Master/slave" or "Mistress/slave" and refers to D/s relationships or roleplay that adhere to the archetypes of slavery. These relationships almost always involve bondage and/or pain, though discipline can be administered through means other than corporal punishment, as I will discuss at a later time. Again, this can be the constant dynamic of a relationship or temporary roleplay. The concept of "ownership" of the slave may or may not factor in depending upon the relationship/roleplay distinction. This can greatly affect the level of real control the Master or Mistress has over the slave.

It also is not necessarily a sexual dynamic as it is merely a form of Dominance and submission. Many people have played slave roles at school slave auctions or after losing a bet. These are less formal but no less valid (and fun) expressions of this dynamic. They also tend not to involve sex. More serious involvement in Master or Mistress and slave roles may also be carried out without any sexual intention or attachment.

This acronym is probably less commonly used because MS (all caps, no slash) is short for Multiple Sclerosis.

B&D - This is "Bondage and Discipline." These two very commonly go hand-in-hand and this is usually (though not always) reflective of an S&M dynamic. I like this term, though, because bondage and discipline can be used as training tools in a D/s or M/s relationship. Neither the submissive nor the Dominant need necessarily enjoy either in order to utilize them. In fact, some masochists are difficult to discipline because pain is what they want. When spanking is a treat, how does it discourage bad behaviour? On the other hand, a submissive who is not a masochist may hate spanking and try to avoid it at all costs. This term refers to these activities without assigning universal motivations to the people who engage in them. This includes referring to bondage and discipline without connecting then to D/s, which is another possible way in which they can be engaged - for fun and for their own sake.

Discipline here essentially refers to corporal discipline, as is true in all of these acronyms. Of course, as I have stated, there are forms of discipline that do not involve pain.

BDSM - The Biggie. I talked about this some in my very first post here. Basically, there are many definitions (thanks to the tightly defined vocabulary of cyberspace). The most common definition is "Bondage, Discipline, Sadism and Masochism." Some combine the last two into the single word "Sadomasochism," but it means the same thing.

Other definitions include: "Bondage, Domination, submission and Masochism," "Bondage, Discipline, Submission and Mastery" and "Bondage, Discipline, Slave and Master." Sometimes (though more rarely these days) the acronym may be rendered with a lowercase "s" as "BDsM" when the "s" connotes the word "submission" "or "slave." There are several other renderings of the acronym's definition, but these are common examples.

Basically, this is a huge umbrella term for all people who like tying and being tied, spanking and being spanked, giving and receiving pain, being Dominant or submissive, and often the black leather/vinyl/PVC/goth aesthetic that is commonly associated with those interests. It seems also to most commonly refer to physical practices of bondage and pain, at least in everyday use.

I'm not a huge fan of this term as it lumps everything together. Most people simply aren't into everything that the term BDSM encompasses. What happens, though, when all these things are commonly grouped is that the assumption is made by those inside and outside BDSM subculture that someone who likes some of it likes all of it.

For example: You like getting spanked. Great. Some BDSMers will then say, "You're a submissive" and expect you to want to be their slave. While the terms "Dominant" and "submissive" are often used in BDSM culture to refer to the ones giving and receiving pain, respectively, this is probably a mistake because the disambiguation of this usage from the one I described above is often difficult.

You may love pain but hate bondage, love to serve but not want to be a slave, enjoy a good spanking but not want to obey orders. Grouping all these things together under one umbrella term often blurs the distinctions between these different interests and sends people down paths they did not wish or need to travel. Additionally, interest in bondage and discipline does not necessarily connote masochism or sadism.

I'll talk later about the exclusivity and snobbery of the BDSM world, but for now I will simply say that it is often viewed as just that - a world all its own with its own universal rules. This does reflect some subcultural structures and those things are fine. But it does not really reflect the reality of the way everyday people often experience these things.

Personally, I love all of it to one degree or another - and I'm a switch so I like the giving or the receiving, the serving or being served. But I've run into terrible trouble in the past when masochists were treated as submissives. When they were unable to perform the submissive role, it caused all kinds of problems when, really, they would have been much happier and emotionally safer just experimenting with pain, bondage and spanking instead of trying (unsuccessfully) to be someone's slave.

Knowing these acronyms is important for this conversation, as is knowing how they can be misused and what pitfalls they can often include. I have in the past thought that a good alternative to BDSM might be DSBD. This would stand for "Dominance, Submission, Bondage and Discipline." This then refers to Dominants and submissives, whether they are slaves and Masters or not and those who use bondage and discipline whether they are sadists and masochists or not. Of course, it's still one term, but it combines two previously existing acronyms that are already used independently from one another. It also uses broader terms that are flexible among many different applications.

Well, maybe I'll start using it and it'll catch on. You heard it here first, folks.

D/s - Fixed, Flexible and Fundamental

I believe it is very important that some things be made clear early in the life of this blog. One of those things is the breadth of the concept of Dominance and submission (D/s). It's more than just BDSM. I will be talking about sexual fantasies, romantic roleplay and fetishes here. But I think it's important for us to realize that D/s dynamics permeate our lives. If we fail to realize that, then we leave the things we discuss regarding D/s and BDSM in the bedroom and miss out on what they have to offer in the rest of our lives. Here's what I mean.

All relationships involve Dominance and submission. They all include power negotiations and levels of control or influence. This happens from our earliest relationships with our parents on through to siblings, friends, teachers, pastors, enemies, bullies, bosses and co-workers.

In the beginning, we are submissive to our parents. We learn the nurturing, caring side of Dominance, the Domimant role of providing for and looking after the submissive. It is a place of security, affection and warmth. As we grow, we learn the discipline side as we are trained, corrected and encouraged in the right direction by our parents. As we mature, more responsibilities and expectations are placed on us and greater consequences result from our mistakes. Hopefully then, as we learn, we gain a greater love for and security in life from our parents' influence.

From then on, as children and on into adulthood, we form relationships based on concepts of boundaries, right and wrong, Dominance and submission, that we learn from our parents. Different relationships work out in different ways, but there are always decisions to be made about where we will go and what we will do - whose agenda will rule the moment or the day. These are negotiations of Dominance and submission that we carry out otfen without even realizing it. They manifest themselves in different ways and are more pronounced in some relationships than others. I refer to them as Fixed and Flexible.

FIXED - This is the easiest way to see and understand Dominant/submissive dynamics in our everyday lives. Certain relationships exhibit a fixed D/s structure. I call these strongly Dominant/submissive relationships. Some are this way by design and are dictated by societal expectations, tradition and formal or institutional relationships.

These include our relationships with teachers, judges, parents, employers and others who have vested authority in our lives. They also include relationships with students, waiters, employees, children and others who are under our care, financially obligated to us or in a service role of some kind. I call these D/s structures Fixed because they are clearly defined and operate on a certain set of rules and expectations. In general, power flows one way and does not alter its course. One person dictates the other's behaviour and that person is expected to submit, to serve, to listen, to obey.

Fixed D/s dynamics also show up in less formal situations. These occur simply as a natural outgrowth of the personalities involved the the relationship and the goals and desires of each person. Between two friends, there may be one who tends to abdicate to the other or one who tends to dominate the moment. Even among a group of friends, often a leader may emerge. Depending on the group or one-on-one relational dynamic, this may be seen as one person "worshiping" or "idolizing" the other. In some groups, the dominant leader may have a "lap dog," a member of the group who is particularly focused upon and "under the spell" of the leader.

Often, these relationships happen among children and teens and are very obvious and even manipulative. While these are not necessarily healthy dynamics, with one person often able to lead others against their own desires, beliefs or boundaries, they do express a natural human tendency toward the distribution of power.

They can also be quite healthy, as a child or teen finds an admirable person to emulate who has a strong positive influence. These relationships can be like mentoring relationships, often with an older and more experienced person as what I will call the Dominant friend.

This dynamic carries on (whether we admit it or not) into adulthood as we develop our social circles in much the same way we did as children and teens. This is often done less obviously as our adult selves have learned to negotiate dominance on a more subtle level. But, as we try to fit in at our local church or impress (or undermine) our new boss, we are constantly making decisions about who has the power in our lives and who we will seek to have power over.

It must be noted here that seeking to have power, authority or influence is not a bad thing. It is not always a matter of manipulation, though we often think of it in that way. Seeking to be a good influence on those around us or to take under wing someone who needs guidance are ways in which we seek to have influence. They, for the most part, are beneficial and not harmful.

How ever we experience them, fixed D/s dynamics are sprinkled throughout our lives, sometimes in relationships that we have perhaps never seen in that light before. They can of course be manipulative and even abusive. They can be less than enjoyable but necessary and they can be beneficial and loving. But they are there, no matter who or where we are.

FLEXIBLE - The flexible category may be harder to spot. It exists on a sliding scale from Flipped to Fluid.

FLEXIBLE (Flipped) - This is the simplest form of Flexible D/s. It happens when a relational dynamic shifts power completely from one person to another from time to time. In the early days of Christmas celebrations, there were large parades and parties in the streets. During this festival, often servants and Masters would switch roles for the day, allowing the underling to be in charge. It was a way of promoting peace and fun. In a similar way, some D/s relationships switch. My best example of this is lovers who incorporate D/s play into their love life. As a treat or after winning a bet or something of that nature, the woman may get to tie the man up for a change or vice versa. Or, a relationship between two "switches" (that is people with both Dominant and submissive tendencies) may incorporate occasional and carefully negotiated or spontaneous and unpredictable shifts in power. This may depend upon arranged timetables or code words or simply the prevailing moods of those involved.

We also see this dynamic in a tribal setting where the leader may be challenged by a member of the tribe to a game or a fight with the winner obtaining the leadership role in the tribe. It also happens on a team of two or more where more than one member has a plan for achieving a specific goal or for running the group. If one leader is unsuccessful, he or she may abdicate to another group member who has his or her own idea.

In all these situations and others like them, power shifts completely from one person or group to another, elevating the submissive to Dominant status or vice versa. This is usually a temporary or occasionally renegotiated arrangement, but can result in a permanent shift in power.

FLEXIBLE (Fluid) - This category has, as I mentioned, a sliding scale of power exchange. It may be as simple as teamwork in which one person's aptitudes give him or her dominance for the duration of a particular task or challenge while another person is seen as more fit to lead another challenge. Such negotiated leadership roles occur frequently in business. ("Okay, Jim. You know the structure of our presentation. You give the formal outline. I'm good at getting people fired up, so I'll do the glad-handing and take over when it's time to ask them to invest.")

As you can easily imagine, there are many levels at which Dominant and submissive roles are renegotiated, running all the way up to what most would see as an egalitarian dynamic, where no one is particularly in charge. Here, Dominance and submission happen almost moment by moment and can shift in either direction. (Either, "Hey, let's go to a movie." "Okay." Or "Hey, let's go to a movie." "Nah, I'm not really in the mood.") In an egalitarian structure, each person has the opportunity to set the agenda for the day, the moment or the conversation at any given time or to reject the other's bid for Dominance or submission.

The most counterproductive example of this type of relationship I can think of is that of the two little cartoon chipmunks who each constantly try to give deference to the other: "After you." "No, after you." "No, I insist; after you." "No, I insist; after you." And on and on it goes. Interestingly, in this example both parties are seeking to get their way, but each is trying to serve the other. That's another post entirely.

FUNDAMENTAL - The point is, whether they are Fixed or Flexible, Dominant/submissive dynamics are Fundamental to human relationships. Every day we choose to serve others or to lead others - to lead by serving or serve by leading (that's another post too). We choose to serve God or our own interests.

Ultimately, Dylan was right when he said, "You Gotta Serve Somebody." No matter what the state of our interpersonal D/s dynamics, our primary D/s relationship is with God. And He'd better be the "D". If we are submitted first to Him, we will be seeking to love others whether we are Dominant or submissive and that is the point after all, isn't it?

Letter From Sean

As I mentioned in my introductory post, I will be responding to questions here on the site as I receive them in e-mail - that is, when the sender is comfortable with it.

As I seriously doubt I have any readers at this point, it feels a bit premature to be responding to e-mails already. But, I just got a note from a friend of mine that he and I both thought would be a good impetus for a post. I'll call him Sean.

Before I get to his letter, let me give you some background on Sean. He's a submissive young man who has been serving as his Mistress' slave for nearly five years. They have a platonic relationship in that they are friends who engage in a Dominant/submissive dynamic with no romantic or sexual overtones. That may sound odd to some of you, but I can assure you it works well and suits their friendship. Anyway, here's what Sean had to say.

i'm having a problem with Mistress. Well, not a problem, really. Just a sort of concern, i guess. Things are going well in O/our friendship. She's been though some hard times lately, but i think She's doing better now. But as Her slave, i feel...a little lost. W/we've always had a fairly loose exchange, not being able to be together in person as much as we'd like. But, as often as i've tried to subtly communicate it to Her, i just don't feel that She understands that i want Her to take more control.

i feel bad even bringing this kind of stuff up because, y'know, i'm always worried about not pushing Her. But here's the thing. i just don't feel like i have to obey Her. When i disobey (which is a little too often) i'm never, ever punished. She says She's going to, but it never happens. It used to, but that's been a long time ago. i don't know, maybe She doesn't know what to do to punish me, but it just seems that I get nothing but empty threats.

Then, when i am obedient, when i am consistent in the day to day stuff, i get no response. She doesn't say anything. i'd be happy just to hear "good boy" once in a while. In person, She's totally different, noticing when i obey and commenting when i please Her. Still no punishment. i tend not to disobey in person. >wink< style="font-weight: bold;">

Sean

He wrote more, but that's the thrust of it. Sean is dealing with a problem I think many submissives face. It's hard to know when you should communicate to your Dominant that you have needs that are not being met in the relationship. And yes - it is OK to do this! A D/s relationship is still a relationship. It needs the same kind of communication and maintenence as any other relationship. A common mistake among Dominants is to treat submissives (especially slaves) as if their needs and feelings do not matter or should be suppressed. At times, yes, the subbie needs to push past their own hang-ups and just do as they are told. But, as a general rule this kind of arrangement is not healthy.

What you're missing, Sean, is a clear system of discipline and rewards. your Mistress is making Her expectations clear, but seems to have a muddled follow-through. I know you two have been Mistress and slave for a long time (and friends for longer), but being far apart most of the time means that the growth of your dynamic can become somewhat stunted as you are often unable to give it focused attention. I think your Mistress just doesn't realize how much guidance you need. I think you respond well to a firm hand - a consistent tug on the leash to keep you in line or a treat to let you know you've pleased Her.

What you're looking for, quite frankly, is attention. This is not necessarily a bad thing. If you hog Her attention, if you make it all about you and your need to be seen and heard, you do your Mistress a disservice. But you do need a certain amount of consistent attention, some fuel for your subbie fire. you're a bit like a pet in that regard, trained by way you're treated. If discipline is neglected, disobedience becomes easier. If rewards and praise words are not given, doing right seems pointless. you need to know that you are affecting Her, that your actions have an impact on Her. Otherwise, you start to feel like a weird stalker or uninteresting project.

you know your Mistress better than I and you should have some protocol in place for bringing these kinds of issues to Her. If not, that's an issue in itself. To broach the subject in the beginning, you need to respectfully request a frank audience with your Mistress and tell Her how you feel. Do not be critical. Don't give Her a list of complaints and don't tell Her how to do Her job. Just explain to Her that if you have been displeasing to Her in any way, if your service has been lax, it's probably because of this issue. Let Her know that you will accept any response She wishes to make, that you are not trying to coerce Her one way or the other, but that you want to serve Her to the best of Her ability and you are merely suggesting structures that may help you to do that. you may even need to discuss what types of discipline actions are being employed and what else might be effective.

As far as communication goes, you need the ability to have an open channel with Her. If you do not, then the two of you need to sit down together and decide on a method. Perhaps you may have a formal request phrase like, "Permission to speak freely, Mistress," or "If it pleases You, Mistress, may i express a concern?" Or, perhaps your Mistress will choose to set up a regularly scheduled time when the two of you talk about your relationship and you are free to bring up any issues you may have.

you are not wrong to have these issues. you serve your Mistress well by making Her aware of them. How is She supposed to guide and train you if She is unaware of factors affecting that guidance?

In whatever way you need to, talk to Her. Do it respectfully. Maybe just show Her this blog post, but communicate your feelings. She loves you and wants the best for you. I doubt she'll turn you down.

An Introduction

BDSM. Those four letters alone mean that I have to designate this as an Adult blog. It's true that I am here to write about things that only adults should be discussing, but please do not misunderstand.

This is not a pornographic blog. I do not write erotic fiction. I am not here to discuss the racy details of my wild sex life. Sexuality will enter in to the discussion, to be sure. But that is not my primary focus here.

I'm here to explore themes of Dominance and submission in human relationships. That infamous acronym, BDSM, is an assemblage of letters with an unfortunate pedigree that, for better or worse, is intrinsically involved in this discussion.

All its variant meanings, "Bondage, Discipline and Sadomasochism," "Bondage, Dominance, Submission and Mastery," "Bondage, Discipline, Slave and Master," and many others do cover topics that I will be discussing here. However, I detest its use as an umbrella term for all manner of kinks and fetishes, ties and tortures, roles and relationships of certain persuasions. The reasons for this will hopefully be made clear in some posts to follow, though I will use the term as needed. We are, afer all, talking about things with which it is popularly associated.

But, doesn't the title of this blog say something about Christ? Indeed, it does - and I hope that is what has drawn you here. Christians all over the world are indeed involved with these things - be it through kinky sex, internet porn, unspoken fantasies, or in relationships (sexual or otherwise) with friends and co-workers.

Wherever they find expression for it, many Christians have a natural, human inclination toward Dominant/submissive play and relationships. This is healthy. This is not a sin. However, it is most often deemed to be perverted and unacceptable by Christian culture and teachings. This leads Christians to become ashamed of their inclinations and desires and to seek to fulfill them in unhealthy ways.

Wanting to give or receive spankings, to tie or be tied, to serve or be served - these are not sinful impulses and can, in fact, teach us much about a deeper Christian life and a deeper love for those around us. If you are a Christian who has these interests, this blog is for you.

You may have looked around and found other websites dealing with BDSM and Christianity. Some have condemned it, some have embraced it. I have seen them too and I've found the so-called "Biblical"arguments on both sides of the issue to be dishearteningly banal.

One side uses the Bible to repress, demean and ostracize Christians with healthy desires; the other side uses it to justify an obscene preoccupation with highly sexualized misogyny. This has gone on long enough.

I am here to offer a third way, a hopefully more balanced and realistic perspective that neither demonizes these lifestyles and desires, nor paints them as God's unbending plan for relations between the sexes. I am not a Biblical scholar, though I do take careful study of Scripture and am no stranger to the tenants of good historical scholarship, translation, exegesis and hermeneutics.

I do not claim to have it all figured out. I am still learning, as I fully expect I always will. But I am inviting you along for the journey. Perhaps we can learn from each other. My e-mail box is wide open to questions, comments and suggestions. I will be happy to respond to questions either in blog posts or in private e-mail conversations, whichever you are more comfortable with.

So, with that, I welcome you. I hope that my thoughts along the way can be helpful to you. As someone who has benefited greatly from his experiences with the Dominant/submissive dynamic, I know that it can be a rich and wonderful experience that glorifies and honors God. I hope you will find that to be true as well.