I often wondered, in these types of D/s relationships, if it's sometimes gets lonely for one or both partners. This letter confirms that at it can be, at least for some.

The master-slave relationship is so interesting and complex. Perhaps the most interesting thing to me is that there are people, more than I realized, who just thrive on it. Wikipedia is the last place on earth I'd think of to learn about it, so thanks for the heads-up, Dan. I once believed I had Master tendencies until I finally realized - I just bossy. I sure as hell don't want to make all the decisions. What's really appealing is the ability to order a blow job on a whim.

:-)

Sometimes when you have real-world responsibilities, being in charge in fantasyland can be a fucking burden.

Good advice. If it's hot, and just a lot of work, it should be easy enough to find common ground and make a compromise. They are already getting out of their role to spend time with friends, so maybe they just need to carve out a few more parts of their relationship which can serve as a break from the ongoing scene.

I would think being the master is mentally more difficult than being a slave, given that the creative aspect of the scenes are almost entirely your responsibility.

I guess it would follow that subs/slaves are easier to come by than doms/masters as well.

@5, kinda depends...When we started, my husband crafted all kinds of elaborate scenes for us -- I loved it. But over time, he cut back to almost nothing. Hey, he was in charge. But I was sad, and lost a lot of my sex drive. Recently (since our marriage reboot), he has upped our activity, not to where it was at the beginning, but to a level he can manage comfortably. That means that a lot of our scenes involve me giving long blow jobs (a la @2); other scenes involve me doing household chores without any immediate pay-off; and other scenes involve third-parties: my husband is in charge of my sex & play life with other people, and sometimes sends me to fuck a new guy, or gives me over to another dom for an evening.

So - yes, it's very hard to find giving doms, who will go years on end planning scenes that their subs relish. More feasible, though still hard, is to find or craft a good match between dom & sub, where the scenes the dom finds fun to plan are also roughly satisfying for the sub, and where the partners can keep that going, as their desires change over time... I can say that such a partnership has difficult aspects, for both sides, over the years -- but is well worth the effort.

@5

Is it anything like being a Dungeon Master in D&D?

No? Then I got noth'n.

@5

It's easy to be a leach of a slave. It's extremely hard to learn how to submit gracefully and genuinely.

A "slave" who makes the experience all about themselves isn't really a slave IMO, or even a genuine submissive. They're an attention whore who saps a relationship by tilting all the power to one side while pretending it's on the other.

When there's balance in the relationship, when both partners consider the other's needs equally then it's not exhausting, but rather symbiotic and rewarding.

Just.... that's not how it usually works the first time or 10 out of the gate when folks are still wound up in their own individual experience more so than their experiences together.

An easy solution that could fall out of this discussion organically (and, if it doesn't, this needs to be said): Why not have set D/s times? On Sunday, all day, you're the Master and he's the slave. But on Saturday you two can both wear pajamas and sit around and play board games--and even fuck!--and not have your entire lives together dictated by what gets your boyfriend hot.

@2 - It depends a lot on the relationship. I know some M/s couples where the slave does a lot of decision making in areas where they have been given the responsibility of making the decisions on behalf of their Master/Mistress. In fact I don't think I've ever met a healthy M/s couple where this hasn't been the case.

@6: Interesting. Are there many switches in the bdsm scene, or do people who are deep into it tend to be categorically dominant or submissive?

Have you and your husband every switched things up for kicks, or would that just not be fun for either of you?

BDSM has always fascinated me, but unfortunately I haven't had the opportunity to seriously explore it. If I did, however, I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy both sides (I certainly fantasize about both). I guess that means I'm either a switch, or I'm just not a true BDSM'er.

@11 - if you're fascinated and you have fantasies about it... then you're certainly a "true BDSM'er" :-)

There are lots of switches, but many prefer to top some people and bottom to others, rather than take turns with a primary partner. Of the ones I know who are switchy with a primary, it takes the form of physically wrestling for control during sex.

The people who like domming in daily life (as opposed to the bedroom) generally don't get off on fighting for that control; the people who like to give up control in daily life generally don't like not knowing whether or not they're supposed to be handling something. At least, that's how it works for us.

i do plenty of suggesting and script writing, and i'm a sub. being the dom doesn't automatically mean your sub is just laying there like a lox.

Some people are just never happy.

@14 - In any long-term relationship, the partners have different kinds of hard or soft power. Thinking of D/s as lots of subservient doms bullied by their greedy subs is a misreading of the situation. I believe it's more accurate to think of it as an ongoing negotiation, where over time both sides figure out what they actually want and how to ask for it. The hardest part for us was realizing that getting what we both wanted was going to involve opening up the relationship (so he could have some non D/s sex, and I could have more frequent floggings).

@12: it takes the form of physically wrestling for control during sex.

Damn that sounds like fun. A lot of fun. Damn.

Dan, commenters, I believe you might be interested in the philosopher Hegel's concept of the Master-Slave dialectic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slav…). I'm a PhD student, so I know I over-theorize sometimes, but this stuff is good, so hang in here with me. Essentially, by taking control over another who becomes a slave, the master's identity is then dependent upon the existence of that slave as a slave in order to maintain an identity as master. You can't be a master without a slave, right? So the power dynamic is in fact more equal than it might immediately seem, because the master's identity is based upon being a master, and so the master is dependent upon the slave being a slave. Fitting for our convo, if I do say so myself.

@17 my thoughts exactly.

I suppose I'll be pelted with rotten vegetables, but there's something almost sweet about the letter. It's at least refreshing, after so many letters about non-sexually perfect partners with whom a sexual incompatibility has sprung up, to have one with scorching sex and an emotional incompatibility. This LW strikes me as less ostrich-like than so many of the other sort.

I'm a little puzzled as to why, if the first paragraph falls through, there appears to be no possibility of a break-up. Of course, I'm not really familiar with the protocol. Is such a thing just not done? Or possibly ARM and Mr Savage just can't conceive of anyone abandoning such hot sex. But while the first paragraph seems basically sound advice just the other way around, and the third paragraph is true enough, that outcome might be just the sort of thing that ARM doesn't really want. (S)He certainly doesn't seem to be looking at the possibility with anything like pleasurable anticipation. And, if the slave would find ARM finding friendships/boyfriends elsewhere hotter than ARM would, that just might be an even more complete capitulation.

@3 -- Beautifully said.

#20 I'm thinking a break up isn't on the table because this is a fixable problem. Also it doesn't sound like ARM wants an open relationship, [she described it as being 'doomed'].

I'm assuming she didn't mean it as a joke.

@20 (Mr Vennominon) -- my thoughts exactly. I also wondered why Dan did not mention the possibility that this couple might be not so compatible, with a break-up as a plausible option.

Maybe, after all (as Dan has often said), he's sufficiently conservative to want people to stay together if at all possible without the partners' losing their minds or withering away.

@EricaP, I'm thrilled by your description of BDSM dynamics. My own experience (which is rather limited, since I only started acting on my submissive desires in my last few relationships) is that 'complete' submission, even if it feels hot and looks ideal, is not a good idea. In the end, we know we are all playing parts -- because it feels so good, but parts they still are, since we, master or slave, are always (like everybody else) much more than simply players in this game.

I often wonder about its implications -- why is it that something has to 'look bad' in order to 'feel good', and whether tragedies could or couldn't follow from confusing looks and feels. I suppose this LW shows that, in BDSM as in anything, lack of communication (and the concomittant expression of one's feelings and desires to one's partner) is a slow relationship-killer. The LW feels as if really talking on equal terms with his/her submissive partner would be, well, 'breaking the 27/4 fantasy' and somehow maybe 'failing' as a dom. Just like the 'traditional' (Stepford) wife, just like the guys in Mad Men never really talking to their wives about what really is going on in their minds.

It's strange to be both equal and unequal. But otherwise it's apparently self-defeating.

Is there a web site where a potential Dom can talk with people of experience in that role and also meet a sub? I looked around but I'm not sure where to go. Also, I'm deaf and being able to exchange views in writing. I'm interested in exploring this culture. I find it endlessly fascinating.

@10. Thank you for that feedback.

@EricaP. You are a constant source of knowledge and surprise. Thank you.

LW doesn't mention age, but it could be a factor. Young subs may understand their role differently as they grow older. It took me a number of years to begin seeing the complexities of subbing, pulling my share of weight in the daily life of a couple while maintaining sub space. And I feel I'm still just beginning to learn and a long way away from that graceful submission. It isn't as hot as the fantasy of some total iron man ravishing a helpless, tied up me, but then that's again such a boy-like fantasy, the age thing again.

Sometimes I worry, like a previous commenter, if I'm doing BDSM right or am I just a dilettante, and sometimes the bitchiness of gay men on the internet adds to this feeling. But as others have commented, it's just play, and yes play can be serious and high-stakes, but it's still play.

It helps me to think of a loyal dog or horse, who does a lot for its master, and certainly initiates when the desire takes it, or when it perceives its master to be in need.

@25 Fetlife is an excellent website for anyone interested in the fetish community, but especially D/s relationships. It's a great way to meet other people in your area who are D/s and to find out about munches (those would be BDSM gatherings -- usually with no sex) or other events.
www.fetlife.com

This is a common problem that I've wrestled with too. I've never been interested in TPE, but even simply being dominant there is this expectation that the dominant is always dominating.

I think the issue is one of the intersection of fantasy and reality, and it's really hard to explain. The fantasy is the slavery, but it's easy enough to find slavery out there--just get a crappy, minimum-wage job. The reality is that a "slave" wants someone who ultimately loves, respects and cares for their well-being, along with caring about the particular things that get the slave off. The problem is that someone who loves, respects and cares for the sex partners and their sex partners' kinks, also has a need to be able to express that love in a direct way, for example having a conversation of equals, as opposed to always an oblique way, e.g. dotingly planning out elaborate scenes all the time. Personally I don't think it's enough to simply get one's boyfriend needs met with someone else. Ultimately the slave needs to open up to be treated like an equal person every so often, to keep the love alive.

Or maybe that's just a female thing, I don't know. My two cents.

Ms Anon/Mr Ank - I was really more just going the route of flipping the usual sort of letter on its other end. It's just that there are usually three possible outcomes after the Presentation of Unmet Needs - A) A sufficiently workable fix is cobbled together or at least attempted; B) The relationship opens to allow the needs to be met elsewhere; C) The relationship ends. Generally that's the order of preference, although there's often debate.

It was just interesting to see the usual progression of potential outcomes cut off at B. Granted, it's complicated a bit by ARM appearing to present that (s)he hasn't considered parting. And there's no definite reason that B would be doomed to failure. But ARM doesn't come across as someone for whom B immediately jumps out as an ideal solution. Not that pointing out how common the arrangement is was wrong; it just struck me as an abrupt cut-off.

What's particularly interesting is that this way around opening the relationship probably gives the withholding partner everything (or at least a lot more of what) he wants and, in a way, benefits him for withholding. It seems potentially a curious way of rigging the system to reward bad behaviour.

I don't know a lot about TPE, but it strikes me that this arrangement is very new to the couple, as is their relationship. They've been together for not much more than a year, and the TPE arrangement has only been going for a couple of months.

I wonder whether the novelty value of the TPE is what is making it so intensely interesting / satisfying for the sub, and whether he might ease off on wanting the 24/7 aspect of it after a while.

The fact that the relationship itself is fairly new also makes me wonder how much at ease they are in communicating their needs and anxieties to one another. At this stage (it seems to me) people are often anxious to please their partner and reluctant to make waves as they aren't certain what the response will be. The balance can be skewed towards holding the relationship together even at the expense of one's own wants and needs going unmet. As time goes on, the partners become more secure with one another, the state of affairs becomes progressively more unsatisfactory, and eventually communication becomes more frank and real negotiation can take place.

Another thought is perhaps, having made the agreement, the boyfriend finds himself in a similar bind to ARM: not entirely sure he wants this dynamic all the time, but not wanting to be a bad slave.

Frank, kind communication is definitely the key here.

@31. "Frank, kind communication is definitely the key here. "

You've just solved 75% of relationship problems. Go get yourself a column, stat!

@23, 24, 26, 29, 32 – I don't want to get into an argument about whether 24/7 TPE is "just play", but let me say that, for me, it is no less real and visceral than my "roles" as mother to my children, or daughter to my parents. My husband and I have not spoken as equals in eighteen years, although it might sound that way to outsiders. But we both know that he has the final say, and that makes a difference.

@27 The Topping Book by Dossie Easton & Catherine Liszt has a lot of good advice about how to design a scene to suit yourself and your partner.

@31 "eventually communication becomes more frank and real negotiation can take place." Yes.

I understand where your coming from vennominon but I just think it'd be a shame to end a relationship that seems pretty happy and fulfilling over an issue that could be resolved with talk.

Now if he refuses to stop the slave behavior when she makes it clear it's not what she wants then we get to DTMFA territory.

Did nobody else think it was odd that the LW would agree to go from a conventional type of relationship to TPE (0 to WHOA!) without perhaps a few sessions with the BDSM-equivalent of training wheels? I certainly get that impression. And that leads me to wonder if the LW is a bit naive to have agreed so readily without considering the consequences.

OTOH, it's also possible s/he was bowled over by the boyfriend's request, especially if it was accompanied by a whole slew of mannerisms designed to impress an inexperienced top (because, as far as the slave-to-be was concerned, he'd just gotten the bestest birthday prezzie ever).

::sighs:: Would it not have made much more sense for the two to have taken the time to try it out? Also, is there any contract between the two of them that allows for discussion and negotiation of their roles?

It's still not too late for the LW to reset the boundaries so that s/he is still entertained by having a slave (M-F perhaps) and emotionally and mentally satisfied by having a regular boyfriend-friend on weekends.

Ms Anon - I'm not disagreeing. I just could make out an equally plausible case for each possible outcome.

A - Boyfriend regrets that he's gone too fully into Slave Mode and finds a happy balance.

B - ARM decides that having a boyfriend and a slave actually feels right and they go open.

C - ARM wants ONE person and BF won't adjust, and they part.

I have no problem HOPING for A, especially as it seems that B might pander to questionable ethics. If ARM turns out to decide that B is great, that's fine, too, although maybe a bit lucky. I just thought it was odd that Mr Savage didn't even put C on the table.

Ms Erica - You almost sound (on a superficial level) like what Mrs Bachmann and others of her ilk ought to be if the religion were subtracted. It would be interesting to see how your experience would develop if you spent a month or so in or with a fundamentalist group. At any rate, bravo for being able to arrange for yourself the life you want.

@EricaP, I'm sure it feels as real as any role; after all, it's the role that would traditionally be called "being your spouse's lover." Being a submissive (which I am too, by the way) implies having this curious need to be in a situation in which you are not treated as an equal by another person. The specific expression -- whether with chains, flogging, ordering around, cuckolding, humiliation, etc. -- vary from person to person (no two submissives are really alike, it seems), but the need is strongly felt by all of us. We need a role in which to express it.

But there are the other roles -- you are, after all, mother to your children, and daughter to your parents, and a bunch of other things (your professional life, your political activism, your personal intellectual/cultural development, etc.). All these things are also part of a human being, just as true and deep as the need to submit. And sometimes they get in the way of submission -- just like any roles may get in the way of other roles, because life is that complex (sometimes being a doctor hinders you from being a father, or vice-versa).

It's when the roles / facets of a person interact with each other that we see (part of) the true depth of that person, what makes him/her unique. Because the mediator -- the one who decides whether the role as father, slave, researcher, lover, etc. is going to win now -- is deeper than these roles. Deeper, without denying that each of them is in itself as true as any of the others.

So when the submissive is really sick and cannot be flogged without health risks; or if s/he is bedridden and cannot kneel and kiss his/her master/misterss' boots anymore; or if s/he is broken-hearted and needs emotional support rather than being smacked around the house; or when s/he's in doubt about his/her own agency and individuality and needs support for his/her feeling of agency and independence (say, because of competition at work) rather than being treated like a dog in a TPE context where the master/mistress always has the last word; in these moments, other aspects of the relationship have to come to the fore and take over.

Because, ultimately, it is all about love. :-)

@Mr Vennominon, who wrote:

What's particularly interesting is that this way around opening the relationship probably gives the withholding partner everything (or at least a lot more of what) he wants and, in a way, benefits him for withholding. It seems potentially a curious way of rigging the system to reward bad behaviour.

Indeed a curious situation, and a fair (implicit) question. My reaction to this is: it all depends on how the boyfriend feels about ARM's behavior. If ARM taking a boyfriend (option B) and getting, as you put it, rewarded for bad behavior, actually delights ARM's boyfriend and fulfills his wishes, then everything is as it should be. If it doesn't -- if it brings all the jealousy and trust issues that monogamic people feel -- then it is not a good solution.

It is indeed an interesting situation when the morality of an act depends entirely on the feelings that another person will have about it. It seems to me that BDSM (especially the DS part) has a lot of such situations -- or else how can submissives ever come to terms with the fact that they're turned on (= have their needs met) by what is usually seen as humiliating or degrading?

You also said, to EricaP:

You almost sound (on a superficial level) like what Mrs Bachmann and others of her ilk ought to be if the religion were subtracted. It would be interesting to see how your experience would develop if you spent a month or so in or with a fundamentalist group. At any rate, bravo for being able to arrange for yourself the life you want.

I can't presume to answer for Erica, but speaking as a submissive myself, this is not in principle different from the curious contradiction at the core of D/s whereby something has to look bad ('violent', 'degrading', 'humiliating') in order to feel good. In the particular case of a submissive woman, there's the added pressure of this being the default assumption for the Mrs Bachmanns and other such fundamentalists (plus all that feminism says about women finding their own individuality and power, the issues of empowerment, etc.); but I think it's ultimately the same question of how one can thrive as an individual by submitting to another.

There is no easy answer to that. I don't think anybody has really found a good answer and a good explanation to submissiveness (other than 'it's an accident in your life story', which basically suggests your wires simply got mixed up). But I do know, from personal experience and from hearing and reading the experiences of others, that it's deeper than that. And it's indeed different from simple abuse and exploitation. Just as people in (healthy) D/s relationships are not being abused, I am sure EricaP is not simply being a Stepford wife or a model of Christian behavior to her husband. The energy being exchanged between them is not of the same kind, if my experience is any judge.

@38 I would not be interested in that experiment. I come to my submission as a thoughtful, assertive feminist and would be promptly kicked out of that environment. I can only give my submission to someone I respect and love.

@39 I am not less of a mother because sometimes I'm at a meeting and can't tuck them in. I'm a mother with other responsibilities as well. Similarly, I'm a sub with other responsibilities. Since my children understand my other responsibilities, they don't complain too much. And since my husband understands my other responsibilities, he lets me go tend to them. Doesn't make me less his property. He wouldn't flog me when sick or be cold to me when I need his warmth -- why damage his property, physically or emotionally? But he has a good sense of the difference between my wants and my needs. And as long as he is of sound mind, he is in charge. (Doesn't make him omnipotent -- he has told me to learn to blow smoke rings, and so far I haven't been able to... but I keep trying...)

EricaP, that is exactly the point I was making. Of course we live the relationship (which is why you find explanations that stress his control of you -- 'damage his property', 'be in charge'), and that is as it should be. It's simply that he does care about you, and that he does understand you're a human being (not merely 'his property'), with needs and a soul and a capacity to grow that can never be enslaved. And that is the reason why you can be, really be, his property, for him to do as he pleases. Is this making any sense to you? :-)

At least, that's what it is like in my (admittedly limited) experience.

On smoke rings, here is something Google just showed me. Maybe it'll help. :-)

@42 Glad to hear that's what you meant. I wasn't sure how to interpret "sometimes being a doctor hinders you from being a father" -- that made it sound like we put on the roles one at a time, which isn't how it feels to me. Being a daughter affects how I mother, being a writer affects how I read, being an activist affects how I am a wife, and being a sub affects everything.

Thanks for the video link - I've seen that one, and a few more. I can get the smoke to puff out, but I guess I haven't got the right shape to my O.

And I've been thinking my last encounter with Ankylosaur was one of those miraculous days when you stumble onto a conversation that then lives in your head for weeks and the guy who put that shiver up you leg would vanish from the face of the earth.

This conversation takes my breath away a little and I keep thinking, "Why in the hell don't I have real, live people in my life like this?" Okay, I'm deaf. I probably do but just don't know it because I can't hear casual conversation. I'm sitter here looking at my desktop where there is a file I created from the debate between Ank and Venniminon on the issue political correctness. I've been thinking how it belongs in a volume of philosophy like The Great Books series.

I'm not very good at connecting the dots in these topics and I suppose that's why I so greatly appreciate great teachers; dot-connectors. I don't want to leave an impression that I'm slighting one of my all-time favorites so, EricaP, thank you, as well. You have greatly enriched my day-to-day experience.

I somewhat shattered by the present conversation. In no way have I ever considered myself to be of "submissive" potential but this conversation blew the doors off of that blind spot. Perhaps the greatest unrealized love I'll ever have was for a man who was my supervisor and for whom I simply slaved for as an employee. He was merely kind to me but my impulse toward him was that there was *nothing* he could ask me to do that I would do immediately. It was far, far better than sex to do that. I think I probably chose my present husband because he seemed to have the same potential but it didn't turn out that way and, since it didn't, I was transformed into someone far different. I don't know what. I'm an intensely introspective man living with someone who isn't and who has grown old and dependent upon my ability to take charge of our affairs. Part of me relishes that. The other part trembles with doubt that I'm able to do it alone.

@45 (My own remarks)

I hate auto-correct. It's embarrassing. Maybe I have a form of dyslexia. Or perhaps a persistent dislike of proof reading. Whatever; I meant to say:

"there was *nothing* he could ask me to do that I would NOT do immediately."

Mr Harwick, you're going to make me blush (and believe me, you wouldn't like to see me blush in real life, it's too embarrassing). Now how can I wipe this smile off my face before my wife sees it? :-)

I think one of the good things about the internet is exactly this possibility of 'meeting' and interacting with some very interesting people you don't usually meet in real life -- mostly because internet encounters can be self-selective (by just choosing to go to certain websites you increase your chance of 'meeting' certain kinds of people rather than others). I've often been amazed by the depth and insight and grace I've found in many people in the years I've been surfing the 'net -- this by far compensates for the trolls à la Seattleblues. Here, there are people like Kim in Portland or EricaP, and Mr Vennominon and nocutename and BlackRose, and many others, who I'd also love to meet in real life.

The relationship you described with that man who you would do anything for does have D/s elements (I think of the dominant women I met, and my wife, and I feel a I'm-melting-in-their-shiny-aura feeling similar to what you describe), but it may still be well within vanilla limits. It reminds me of old chivalry -- of Don Quixote seeing his beloved Dulcinea as a creature of light to whom he'd send his defeated foes 'for her to do as she pleased', or of serenading men hoping for a sight of their beloved who might just come to the balcony, smile and throw them a rose.

You really enter D/s territory when you go from wanting to do anything he'd ask you to actually wishing he'd ask you to do, well, 'humiliating' things, to wanting that he would want to do humiliating things to you, like ordering you around, or laughing at you, or calling you names, or slapping your face, or spanking you, or... or... or... the possibilities are endless... ah! I swoon...

Finally, I think the part of you that relishes in the fact that you're taking care of your and your partner's affairs is more correct than the part that doubts it -- since, after all, your partner has lived with you for as long as you've lived with him; he has experience; and he trusts you. This trust, this belief, is a precious indication that you don't have to tremble with fear that you're not able .

@44, what I had meant was more practical: the duties of being a father may sometimes make it difficult to take care of the duties of being a doctor (if you have to choose between going to a school meeting or then finishing that research project) or sometimes contradict each other (you sometimes have to be assertive and take a dominant stance to mark boundaries with a daughter, even though as a submissive you don't like being dominant). You have to make decisions about which duties from which role you're going to satisfy right now.

Of course, every role interacts and influences with the others. They're after all facts of the same person. It's just that none of the roles is the complete person, plus the fact that there's more to us than the roles that fascinate us so much.

@ Erica--I'm not saying it's not a constructed role or even that ppl can't do TPE 24/7 and not negotiate every single thing. BUT if you decided tomorrow that you no longer wanted to submit to your husband, you would say "I'm not doing this anymore." Or you would leave him. In that sense, it's play. It's fun, it's great, but you aren't "really" a slave (and I really wish we could find another word for this because the history of slavery and racism in this country makes this word uncomfortable for me...but that's a totally different conversation). I'm not really a Master because at the end of the day, I have to respect my sub's limits and desires or I'm basically a rapist/abuser. I won't really MAKE him do what I want. I might threaten to but, if he really doesn't want to, I would never make him. That's why I'm saying it's a game. Because we all go into it with the underlying understanding that any partner could re-negotiate or just plain pull out if they want to. In that sense, my sub and I are totally equal (even if we act like we aren't).

@49, it feels different to me. It feels like, yes, legally, I'm allowed to divorce. But in my head, there is no option called "leaving." When my husband blew my mind by telling me he had gone outside our marriage sexually, leaving him didn't cross my mind. I broke down in tears and sobbed, "So I guess we have an open marriage now. What does it look like? How does this work? How am I going to manage this?" I did not weigh the pros and cons of staying or leaving. He may release me, that's up to him. But eighteen years ago I vowed to stay and serve, and as long as I can, I will. Believe me or not, that's up to you.

@49 So, are we talking about distinctions without a difference? It seems so, but I'm interested in hearing Erica's response. I find both your and Erica's explanations valuable for different levels of reasoning. Your explanation, I think, is more "cut to the chase" and I can't think of the right word for what Erica says but it sounds and feels to me like reality. I like the stark, honest clarity of your view and maybe that's because I've been struggling with the concept of a relationship that isn't egalitarian. If ever a D/s relationship would appeal to me, the first thing that enters my head is how much I struggled for my place at the table of equality with my spouse. While I found it satisfying to be a pleasure to him on an aesthetic level (he was/remains the same for me even at 88 years old) his career success put him into a realm I could never hope for and he held clout in ways that were simply unwise. For example, I never learned to cook because he valued that skill as a sign of his status over me. So, when he aged and encountered health issues that required me to replace him in the kitchen, I walked in with no skill and no teacher to teach me. The same thing occurred with managing our financial affairs. It was *frightening* for me to take those reins because they were so complex. I am relieved to see it mentioned by Erica that the total relinquishment of control of a submissive to a dominant isn't a given, that cherishing and developing the gifts and abilities each brings to the relationship are not merely possibilities, but essentials.

(I'll admit to living in trepidation that one day my husband will forbid me to go on Slog... as Canuck's husband apparently did last spring...)

@Ray, thank you for your kind words & support. It means a great deal (and you too, ankylosaur; somehow I'm always too distracted by your argument to remember to thank you for your kindnesses :-)

Ray, this is key: "*nothing* he could ask me to do that I would do immediately. It was far, far better than sex to do that." Yes :-) A hundred times.

And "I was transformed into someone far different... living with someone who [is] dependent upon my ability to take charge of our affairs. Part of me relishes that. The other part trembles with doubt that I'm able to do it alone."

You can do it. And that doesn't make you less of a servant -- if you choose to see this as submission, to him, to your duty, or even to your old supervisor who would expect you to be able to take charge as you have done so well.

I have changed so much, as my husband's submissive -- taking care of my body in ways that I thought unimportant before, caring for the house, my mind, our children, our community, our country. I was very nihilistic before we connected, and so it is a real revelation to me how caring for him has led me to care for the wider world as well (insofar as that doesn't interfere with giving frequent blow jobs :-)

ankylosaur @47 -- I love reading about what turns you on. But I would say that the chivalrous impulse fits well within BDSM. Most of the time, my service is not about feeling humiliated. I like to feel valued & appreciated, not worthless. (And mostly, my husband doesn't want to humiliate me. Except insofar as putting me in 4 inch heels and tight skirts is inherently a bit humiliating for a feminist :-)

@53, I forgot to fix the typo you'd already fixed at @46 - sorry!

I'm saving this page in my "Keeper" file. It has shaken me to the core and in such a positive way. Thanks to MsErick and MrAnk.

!@$%$% auto-correct !

@54, indeed it does--I sometimes think the chivalrous impulse, the I-would-do-anything-for-my-lady that you see so much in the Romantics, and even before that in the trouvères and troubadours, is actually the source from which submissiveness as a metaphysical idea (rather than a feeling) arose, how it took shape in modern language. It's just that this feeling is already present in vanilla relationships, so it's not what distinguishes them from D/s ones. Or so I think.

In your case, for instance, it's important that your husband be in change, that the power and decision be his. If most of the time your service is not about being humiliated, it still is service -- i.e., you're doing it from a lower position. And, I presume, it doesn't feel the same as, say, your boss at work, who also has the right (within limits) to tell you what to do; no, if my experience is any guide, it's something you feel in your bones. And as far as I can tell in my experience, the only reason why we get this feeling in our bones, about how good it is that we're doing this because he (or she) wants, is that it would be traditionally humiliating to do so. It would be traditionally humiliating to do something like learning to blow smoke rings, or accepting your partner's infidelity, just because s/he wants us to. The very choice of words -- 'submissive', 'his property', 'we haven't spoken as equals' -- suggests that this imbalance of power, which is traditionally humiliating, is the essence of the fun. Or at least so it feels to me.

So, even though to some people submission means only doing the laundry and cleaning the house, while to others it means also groveling at your master's/mistress's feet, I still see a family resemblance in the feelings in both cases.

It's as if there were a near-religious dimension to submission (the word 'worship' does come up frequently in submissive blogs); as if my wife, when she wears her 'dominant' cap, somehow acquired an aura of force that made her look like a real goddess walking the earth, one that could fly or lift cars with her bare hands, so that it would be simply bliss to melt in Her, to be an instrument in Her hands, to do as She wants (the capitals almost write themselves). It feels like a sacred mission sometimes.

@49, there is truth in what you say that words like 'slave' or 'master' have a tainted history, and I can imagine a conscientious dominant wishing to refrain from using them because of that. But, at least speaking myself as someone with submissive desires, I wouldn't want to change them. Their tainted history of suffering is I think precisely the reason why it is fun to use them within the limits of the relationship -- if they had been 'nice' words with a 'nice' history, they wouldn't feel so adequate. I've read blogs by submissive blacks who like being called 'nigger' by their white partners, despite the sad history associated with that word; and I think they'd agree that, if the word 'nigger' didn't have this history, it wouldn't feel as good to be called one in the context of their relationships. (Yet more evidence that words are not the problem in racism and prejudice, to refer back to an earlier discussion in another discussion thread, but feelings, intentions, and contexts.)

Just as doing humiliating things to your willing sub isn't really humiliating him -- it looks like that but it isn't that and it doesn't feel like that, as you pointed out -- nor is it belittling the plight of those who were really humiliated and abused with the same humiliating things, using words like 'master' and 'slave' in this context is not an offense to the descendants of slaves. It feels more like a tribute, at least to me. (They might feel differently, though.)

@58, 59. This is delicious insight and an awesome cross-reference to your views on political correctness. So, I have a question. What triggers unbearable humiliation in a D/s relationship? I had one hint of insight from reading a blog by a guy named SlaveMike. Wait. Maybe it's not humiliation, but rather exploitation. SlaveMike chronicles his departures from a couple of unsuitable relationships and never speaks directly to his reason, but point his readers to a sympathetic Master who tells us that SlaveMike's masters were basically stealing from him; sending him to work and demanding his wages in-full and at the expense of SlaveMike's credit rating and ability to pay for such bare necessities as health insurance. I suppose one could view such irresponsible actions as humiliations when so much effort is taken to bring honor to a master that, when confronted with their social circle, a slave would experience humiliation for being though of as being insufficiently obedient and, therefore, suspect in terms of finding a new master.

Okay, maybe that's an extreme example or even inaccurate. Is there such thing as a trigger that most submissives would find common ground on that you could call "deal-breaker" humiliation?

On the above, I suppose I thinking something like "good cholesterol vs. bad cholesterol". Is there "good humiliation and bad humiliation"?

Mr Harwick, I once read a book that chronicled an abusive D/s relationship between a submissive male and a dominant female (besides also linking the D/s ethos to the author's interest in Zen Buddhism, quite an interesting twist): Matthew Styranka's Endless Knot: A Spiritual Odyssey through Sado-Masochism. It made me think a little about the question you asked. My answer would be: a submissive can feel when s/he's really being abused because something feels definitely wrong; there is an absence of any clear care from the dominant to the submissive, of any underlying love and respect for the submissive's individuality. It is more difficult to see that in a D/s relationship than in a normal vanilla one, but I think it is ultimately not difficult to tell.

The submissive simply asks him/herself: am I happy with this situation? Was SlaveMike feeling happy with his previous masters, was he satisfied, did he feel that he was somehow blossoming and growing by giving up all his money like that? Or didn't he? Did he feel in the end that that wasn't the case, that said masters weren't ultimately really interested in how he felt, but only in getting more money for themselves? Was there any communication between them -- any time at which they could discuss their feelings and thoughts -- in which he could have ask questions and raise any problems about how he was feeling, and would he be taken seriously in these moments? Or wouldn't he?

Therein lies the difference, I think. In a healthy D/s relationship, there have to be moments in which it is obvious that the submissive's needs are being taken into account, that his/her personhood and individuality are being respected.

Are there things I'd never do? Of course. Everybody has limits. I can think of many things that would make me stop and say 'wait a minute...' I can think of things I wouldn't ever do for a dominant (despite the "I-would-do-anything-for-her-fantasy). For instance, change political opinions. I'm somewhere between liberal and libertarian, which means I'm socially progressive. If I were with a Mistress who suddenly said 'give up all your political opinions; now you're going to be a Republican, or a Christian Fundamentalist, or... and a sincere one!', I don't think I could do it. I'd actually even get angry at her for trying to do that to me.

Another example: I'm deeply, almost sexually in love with foreign languages, in a way that is difficult to explain to anyone who doesn't feel it. If a dominant mistress wanted me to give that up for her pleasure, if she said "you can't study languages anymore, even in your free time!"... again I wouldn't do it. Again I'd even be angry at her for wanting to do that to me. (I know this sounds childish if you're not similarly in love with languages, but to me it's dead serious.)

Mr Vennominon's comparison of EricaP's situation and that of a traditional Christian wife is, in that respect, I think, enlightening. I think (and EricaP, please do tell me if I'm wrong about that) that she doesn't approve of the kind of institutionalized situation that led to these women having to submit to their husbands no matter what, and if she had to live close to, and be compared with, such women, she would be rather irritated. Because the inner feeling in the two cases -- what you feel in your bones -- is, I think, remarkably different, even if superficially she and the stereotypical traditional Christian wife might end up doing similar house chores. It would be like comparing a loving kiss to a Judas' kiss -- both are kisses, but with very different feelings involved.

By the way, such is the magic of D/s that D/s relationships can be abusive the other way -- i.e., there are relationships in which the submissive is abusing the dominant partner. That may seem strange, but -- at least in heterosexual D/s relationships -- I have the feeling it's actually more frequent than situations in which the submissive is being abused by the dominant. (I may be wrong, though; I certainly don't have any stats on the topic.) 'Topping from the bottom' is a real problem, and demanding that one's partner be dominant more often or more intensely than s/he wants to or is capable of is a form of abuse, curious and paradoxical though it may seem.

Y'know, I like being handcuffed, led around on a leash, and flogged as much as the next pervert, but I have difficulty seeing how 24/7 D/s can truly be healthy. The notion of a relationship predicated on creating and maintaining perpetual inequality sets off more than a few alarm bells for me. I agree with Vennominon: Erica sounds eerily like Michelle Bachmann, minus the religion. (Yes, Erica said that she can only submit to somebody she loves and respects -- but presumably Mrs. Bachmann loves and respects her husband, too.)

@64 (nice cnidarian, by the way), I am probably the last person who should jump in and react to your (admittedly interesting) question, since I have never really lived in a 24/7 D/s relationship. I'm curious to see EricaP's reaction. But what my imagination tells me, for all that it's worth (and you're free to think that it's not much, since, again, I never lived in a 24/7 D/s relationship), is that it's about trust and communication that goes beyond the inequality in the relationship. I'm betting that the partners in a (healthy) 24/7 D/s relationship understand each other enough to know what it is that they should do with each other -- the dominant knows the needs of the submissive and caters to them, and vice-versa -- and each of them feels that everything is OK if it indeed is the case.

You could imagine that as playtime going on and on forever, because both players know each other well enough to know that nothing horrible is actually going to happen. (In fact, one 24/7 D/s couple whose blog I once followed claimed that they started by simply progressively prolonging playtime -- rather than a few hours, perhaps the whole night; then, after a while, also the next morning; then perhaps a couple of days; then a whole week; then a whole month... During these play times they got the feeling of what it would be like to go 24/7 forever, and could work on whatever remaining problems after playtime. Once both felt safe, they went for it, and as of the last time I read them (a couple of years ago) were still there and happy.

It is fascinating to read how a fantasy really plays out. I mean, mine usually end well before being played out, but occasionally when reality seems to suck, I have followed through on "what if I DO win the lottery" and then I go back to liking the reality as it is.

@EricaP/50

What you are proposing makes me extremely uncomfortable. Not about the cheating thing (I think if he cheated on you and you stayed with him, whatever), but about the other things.

What if, instead of finding out he was cheating on you, you found out that he was abusing children? Or what if he started beating you in a manner that caused serious harm (broken bones, etc)? What if he demanded that you break the law in a way that would harm other people? What then? If you really are his mental slave, unable to break away from him, then he can do all kinds of damage with your support. I cannot support such a relationship. I'm hoping that you do in fact have some boundaries that you would not allow him to cross.

Hi Lorran,
Well, first off: I didn't pick this guy randomly. We'd been close friends for five years before we figured out the strength of our mutual interest in BDSM, and we talked about it for another year before I vowed to belong to him. (So not much like the LW.) I would not have given myself to someone I didn't trust and respect completely.

And unlike the fundamentalist world, I felt no outside pressure to belong to anyone, to pick a master. Quite the opposite, I had to figure out all by myself how to make my desire to submit work given the liberal feminist upbringing I'd had. (So, yes, ankylosaur @62, I object strenuously to the institutionalization of female submission - where women are not taught first to think for themselves, and given the freedom to choose their own path in life.) And in fact, after much thought I realize that I have to watch out for me abusing him through neediness (as @63) more than I watch out for being abused myself.

But, Lorran, to answer your specific question -- this isn't a suicide pact. My husband has told me that if something were to happen to him, so that he wasn't himself any more, whether a debilitating stroke, or serious mental illness or psychosis... Then not only am I free to leave, but he (the sane, healthy him) orders me to do what I have to do in order to take care of myself and his children.

So then the question is: how would I know he wasn't the person I submitted to anymore? That's where it admittedly gets tricky, off here in the world of conjecture and hypothesis. He's good at getting me to see things his way. His power over me is not imaginary. If he became honestly persuaded that Libertarianism was the way to go, he could probably talk me out of my progressive politics. Obviously he was able to get me to accept opening our marriage. (Though I'd been a fan of Dan Savage since the '90s, so it wasn't that hard a stretch.) Could he talk me into breaking the law? Probably, depending on the activity, if he really wanted to. The devil is in the details. He has never asked me to hurt another person... I imagine, from this safe space of conjecture and hypothesis, that I would see him as damaged and mentally ill if he started asking me to. But maybe I'm wrong and he would charm me into it. Luckily, the odds of us finding out are very low, since he seems quite harmless and progressive and all around a nice guy (except when he's giving me what I need :-)

I might add that I am quite the "over-sharer," both here and in the real-life BDSM community we live in, and so there are always going to be other people to help me figure out if I'm being abused or asked to do something unconscionable.

@60/61 - I don't think there are categories of humiliation such that a outside observer can necessarily tell "good humiliation" from "bad humiliation," if the pure acts were just described on paper. Insults, scat play, cross dressing,cuckolding -- these could be disturbing or fascinating, depending on the submissive's preferences. But if the submissive talked about the scene, I think the outside observer could tell the difference between the glow/blush/flush that rises from a happy kind of humiliation and the self-hatred and disgust that would show up with bad humiliation.

@67: I don't think you need to worry about that too much. I remember EricaP's mentioning that when her husband's extramarital affairs had extended to his actually having a girlfriend (i.e. an emotional relationship with a woman other than her) she put a nix to that pretty quickly. So he's not that completely in charge. Of course, it's possible that I misinterpreted what she wrote about that. But her post @16 ("it's an ongoing negotiation") seems to me much more consistent with the way she's written about this over many threads than the later posts on this thread.

@71 - fuck off. Yes, I found it hard to deal with. I'm not a robot. No, he didn't immediately end things when I was unhappy. I got to be unhappy for a couple of months. But the girlfriend was asking for more than he chose to give her. Whether that's my fault is hard to tell. He broke things off, and I never asked him to.

But yes, if it's reassuring to you to feel that I'm ultimately the one in charge, have at it.

@69-70, indeed. Differentiating 'good humiliation' from 'bad humiliation' would be like saying things have meaning outside of context, which they ultimately don't ('no meaning without context' was one of the mantras in one of my linguistics courses in grad school) -- again as in that discussion about whether offensive words are inherently offensive and bad and should always be avoided, regardless of intention.

Also, about being able to tell whether or not one is being abused... As you point out, how you feel about what is happening is the key point. Talking to others makes this more visible, but it's ultimately the key, I think. Given its structure, D/s relationships are easier than vanilla relationships to lead to 'bad stuff' like co-dependency and manipulation, so one needs more care and attention to details. But ultimately it's not really that different from vanilla relationships -- in which people also often do feel unsure about whether or not they're being loved, or used, or abused.

@EricaP(72/73), don't feel bad about what Old Crow said -- this in no way denies the truth of your submission (anymore than worrying about red flags in a vanilla relationship implies that the love and commitment of the 'worrier' is any less true or deep). It doesn't even seem that that was his/her point -- I think s/he was sorta trying to say you can feel when things are getting too bad, if you're being abused and/or exploited. Right, Old Crow?

@75 ok. I felt OldCrow was saying that when things got less fun for me, I insisted on getting my way. Kind of like cockyballsup's comment in this week's SL column, that "[masochists] use the old emotional blackmail and manipulative complaints that they are being repressed to justify their entitlement to have whatever they want." That's not what it feels like to me.

@76, indeed. It may be cockyballsup's comment is true for some masochists, just like some vanilla partners are, or can sometimes behave, like drama queens or manipulative bastards etc.; but it's not what submissiveness is about, it's not what makes it work, it's not what makes it awesome. It's just that there are stupid, or even simply bad, people everywhere. (Some doms are pretty bad, too, like the dominant lady in the book by Styranka I mentioned; she had her reasons -- she had been abused as a child and then thrown on the streets as an adolescent by a family who refused to have anything to do with her -- but she did abuse her sub.)

Ms Erica @54 - That might depend on which sort of feminist. Apparently the Correct Approved Attitude of the Moment (I have been following a long thread almost directly about this elsewhere) is that it is correct to resent the necessity for many women to don Misogynist-Pleasing Accoutrements, but that the worst it's fair to say to a woman who does it for her own enjoyment with total disregard for the male gaze is that it smacks of I Choose My Choice.

My original post actually sprang from a vision I had of you befriending a woman who sounds quite like you in practice (though the theory is, of course, quite different) and then wondering when would come the Moment of Revelation. One might make a decent sitcom scene out of it.

I was thinking of suggesting that you infiltrate Concerned Women for America or Focus on the Family and make the group implode from the inside, given that you could probably pass more easily than most for quite some time. Lest you think this whimsical or unkindly meant, I have, now that I am Retired from Romance, given serious consideration to infiltrating an ex-gay group of some sort, except that it really doesn't seem to be needed now, and in any case, despite my histrionic capacities, I'm not sure I'd have the chops to be able to pull it off.

@78 I see where you're coming from, but I don't have the acting skills to be a secret agent. They'd ask about my background, my bruises, and my answers would be all wrong. Nice idea, though.

Mr Ven, I am developing a serious admiration for your writing style. The idea of you infiltrating an ex-gay group sounds like a best-seller in need of further development, or perhaps also a sitcom (call it "The New Pride and Prejudice" if you will... Better than Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.).

I was just saying that I read EricaP's earlier account of her husband and his girlfriend as "he started a relationship with another woman and I made him break it off." I expect I read into her (very brief) original account what I expected to read: more than what was actually there. I didn't intend to insult her (it didn't occur to me that it might be an insult). I apologize for putting words in her mouth and for insulting her. And now I'm going to stop commenting before I put my foot further into my mouth.

I have an "undercover experience". I succeeded in joining a women's Bible study group, and become a member of their research and writing team for a few years. I found that there's a fair number of abused women attending Bible studies and it gave me an opportunity to counter Ephesians 5 and other verses. My ability to work within the church ended after my appearance in court, the pastoral staff questioned me as they had been counseling this particular woman about God hating divorce and her need to respect and submit to her now ex-husband. I'm not a compliant creature and it ended with my removal and church membership, but not with my relationship with the women. Those women found the strength to do what was in their and their children's best interest. If I was to say that I was chuffed by my own actions and choices, that would be a period of my life that I would gladly do again. I can be rather forceful and fierce, or so they say.

Anyway, maybe you should do it vennominion. And, you'd be able to describe it all with greater eloquence than I could ever write with.

It would be lovely to meet you, too, ankylosaur.

@ Erica.

Having bathed in your commentary with much delight, it's difficult for me to imagine that your husband could out-charm or be more persuasive than you as to convince you to alter your political philosophy - that is - if he's prepared to hear your point of view. I think the most productive aspect of this vein of the discussion, for me, has been about the wisdom of your mate choice and how your relationship evolved from that thoughtful approach. I say that because in my younger days, I know I was very much the captive of first impressions about mate choice and I didn't give much thought to what I came to regard as an aesthetic-intellectual balance in a mate. One can find a mate who fills the bill in the looks department and who persists with a steady strong-but-silent temperament that a dominant profile blends well with, but who lacks the ability or inclination to articulate needs. Perhaps, also, they simply aren't imaginative or playful, but rather, indulgent.

It calms me to understand that a submissive need not forfeit their gifts, experience and wisdom. And probably equal to that is the calm I experience in understanding how a submissive's neediness, and the need to keep it in check, is in and of itself one of the pleasures of serving someone who returns your love.

@81, Old Crow, I'm sorry for getting so defensive and biting off your head. The drama this summer was during the time when people on SLog were asking me to quiet down about my personal life, so I'm sure I didn't give many details.

@82, wow, Kim, I would have loved to see you in action then! You are indeed fierce, and wonderful.

@83, wishing you equal measures of calm and joy in the future...

Thank you, Erica. You are very kind.

i like subs, blt's too

The fact of this whole conversation -- thoughtful, candid, on the Internet for all, and devoted to nothing less than how to sustain love and and enjoy pleasure -- is making me think: isn't 2011 a great time to be alive?