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.