| The power-balance models for D/s relationships by Julie Deshtor Milady - Salt Lake Utah Pro Mistress Dom |
| Most D/s
writing I have encountered compares the submissive to a dog, or a child.
This is by no means intended to be an insult or deprecation – merely an
analogy. It appears to me that the general opinion presumes that once a sub
enters a D/s relationship, it is appropriate for him to become utterly
dependant on the Dominant partner much in the same manner that a pet dog is
dependant upon its owner, or a young child upon his parent. For the sake of
this essay, I will stick to the dog/owner analogy, since it better fits the
idea that I am trying to express here. Using the dog/owner model of the D/s
relationship, allow me to outline some basic interpersonal dynamics that
emerge.
A dog rarely has an opportunity to choose its owner – it is more likely that the owner will somehow acquire the dog. If the dog is lucky – its owner will be a kind, loving and competent individual. If the dog is unlucky – its owner will be a lousy or incompetent individual. However, the dog is expected to express behaviors such as obedience, trust, respect, loyalty and love towards its owner regardless, and it will most likely express all of the above behaviors unless the conditions of its existence are simply unbearable. In the case of a lousy owner/loyal dog, we may be tempted to ask – why is the dog so loyal to someone so incompetent? The answer is simple – the dog depends upon its owner for all its daily needs such as food, warmth, company, exercise, etc. What seems to matter here is the fact that the owner provides for the dog rather then how well he provides or how much is provided. It is also very rare to see an owner who is genuinely intimidated by his dog. I would like to stress the difference between intimidation and fear. A rabid, ill, or provoked dog may very well inspire a real fear in its owner; this however differs from the caution, respect, and recognition of power that comprises the sense of intimidation. If an animal intimidates the owner, the owner will, in one way or another relinquish the ownership of the animal in question. Generally speaking, a dog (due to the centuries of breeding, due to size, and many other factors) is not a threat to its owner. In the dog/owner dynamics the flow of power and intimidation generally only moves in one direction – an owner exerts power over and intimidates the dog. As the result the control, or authority, are also singularly in the owner’s hands, and it is up to the owner, whether rightly or wrongly to punish, reward, or ignore his dog. One can only hope that a person unwilling or incapable of providing for a dog will not take upon himself the responsibility of owning one and that a person who does accept this responsibility will strife to fulfill it. Now, if we look at the mainstream role of a sub in a D/s relationship, it does appear somewhat similar to the dog/owner model. Allow me to illustrate my point. It is highly unlikely in the mainstream D/s community that a sub will approach a Dom with something like: “Hey, you are now my Master, and must take care of me,” - it happens, but very unlikely. A sub may approach and offer himself to a Dom, but it is ultimately the Dom’s decision which sub s/he will pick. So - the Dom picks the sub. Next, we come again to the subject of competence. The Dom may or may not be a competent Master, but more often then not a submissive does not have many other options. If he is an attractive individual, he is likely to have an entire array of various potential partners circling around, but realistically, how likely is it that those potential partners exert the Dominance that he craves - plus exhibit the same - or better competence as his current Master? Not likely. Thus arises a situation not unlike the one within the dog/owner model. Loyalty, obedience, respect, and trust are given to an individual that is often incompetent, because that individual is able to provide, to some degree, that emotional sustenance the sub needs. Once again, we are back to the same decisive factor - the ability to provide, not how much, or how well is provided. The limited choices of the sub place him in a rather unfavorable and potentially dangerous position. The power arrangement that emerges also closely resembles the dog/owner model. A sub is rarely a threat to his Master, because, like the dog, he is the dependant party. The Master, on the other hand, is the providing party, and has the option of withholding the emotional and often - also physical sustenance from her/his charge. The flow of power, again, is one directional, the Master having the power over the sub. S/He is free to act according to personal opinion whether or not s/he is competent to form an opinion on the matter. The equation again, comes down to the responsibility level, competence, and character of the provider. The dependant party, be that the dog or the sub, is trapped following a singular path. There are no corrective or breaking mechanisms in place in this type of an arrangement, and the possibility of victimization becomes an ever present reality. From what I have seen, the above-mentioned model is typical for most lifestyle D/s couples, and it seems to be viewed as an unavoidable “part of the game” by both the Dominants, and the subs, both single and attached. At this time, I would like to offer a very different model of a sub/Master power dynamic, one that I have not heard, nor read about thus far. Using the same pet/owner model, let us suppose that the “pet” in question is not a domesticated dog, but a grown wolf, and, borrowing heavily from Jack London’s discourse, let us suppose that the “owner” is a man trapped in Alaskan wilderness. What would bring these two separate beings together? Anyone who has had contact with wild animals would agree that in order for the two to develop a bond, some rather extraordinary event must take place. For the sake of this essay, let us go with the cliché story of a wolf pinned beneath a tree, or trapped in some other manner. Let us imagine that the man, fatigued and overcome by hunger, nonetheless opts to assist the animal by releasing it. A wolf is by no means a dumb creature. It is acutely aware of such things as life and death, as inter-species animosity, and signs of hunger and fatigue. It is also intelligent enough to link cause and effect, its freedom to the person who freed it. Let us imagine the wolf following the man In this arrangement, the man is hardly an “owner” - rather he is the person. The man’s choices and actions have led up to the resulting bond, but he has hardly “acquired” the wolf. It is difficult in this situation, to decide whose decision has led up to the union. The man freed the wolf. The wolf decided to follow. The power balance remains intact and equally distributed. So in what way does this Alaskan tale relate to BDSM? The answer will become apparent if we examine the cause of the wolf’s behavior. Why would a wild and independent creature follow a member of another species rather than remain within its own familiar territory? Call it instinct, call it trust, and call it submission. Whatever word we may choose to describe it, the cause remains the same - the man has proven his competence to the wolf, along with his ability and willingness to provide for the animal. In this model, the animal is no longer the dependant party - it does not, in essence, need to depend on the person for any life necessity. The person, has no power over the wolf, but instead, has proven himself to the animal as a trustworthy and responsible leader. From this point on, the power flow in the relationship can best be described as a fluid equilibrium, both creatures are equally intimidating to each other, both exhibit similar respect for one another, and the same amount of caution. So, where is D/s? In this model, it emerges in the principle authority, rather than power dynamics. The wolf follows the man, not the other way around. The wolf does not ask: “Where are we going?” - such a notion would be ridiculous! Instead, it follows silently, relentlessly, an ever-present watchful shadow. Will the wolf sacrifice itself for the person? Without a doubt! It will show more courage, suppress its natural instinctive responses more readily then most well-behaved loyal dogs. Does it obey the person’s orders? Yes, it most certainly does, sleeping in kennels, and doghouses, overcoming its defensive, and hunting instincts, even controlling its own needs, such as hunger and thirst. Will it strive to please the person? It will the majority of the time, behaving in strange and unnatural to it ways, such as entering an enclosed space where there are many humans, allowing itself to be leashed, muzzled, or otherwise bound, rolling over, or howling on command for the person’s enjoyment. There would be only one specific set of circumstances in which the person’s authority would momentarily drop below the wolf’s authority in the relationship. This would occur if the person’s competency level dropped below the wolf’s competency level. An example of this sort of situation would be a cougar hidden among the trees along the pass; a cougar that the person, with his limited senses, cannot spot, but the wolf can smell from half a mile away. In this event, the wolf would behave in a seemingly disobedient or disrespectful manner - growling, refusing to move forward, blocking the man’s pass. A corrective, or breaking mechanism (the one that is absent in the dog/owner traditional D/s model) has effectively kicked in. The man has no power he can exert over the wolf, and the wolf's authority overrides the authority of the person, saving both of their lives. In similar situation, a housedog could be compelled or forced forward, continuing down the pass, resulting in both the owner and pet losing their lives. The dog, though aware of the danger as much as the wolf, is powerless to do anything to express its awareness or alter the course of events. This is the core difference between what appears to be the mainstream approach to Domination, and the approach I am trying to express in this essay. Traditionally, a sub is unable to express any authority, or alter the circumstance of the relationship, or check the Master in any way without breaking the unspoken rules of the lifestyle. He is forced into the position of a potential victim due to his lack of choices, as well as the lack of power. In the fluid equilibrium power balance model, the submissive does not only possess the power to exert his true authority, to correct or veto the Dominant’s decisions, it is moreover his responsibility to his Dominant partner to exert such authority, even overriding the Dominant's opinion, when the situation calls for it. This “disobedience” is a major expression of his submission and loyalty. In the event that the sub's competency level supersedes, it is his duty to correct, or check, his Dominant. His voluntary willingness to obey, sacrifice for, and correct his Dominant is what in my opinion makes the non-dependent submissive much more satisfying, interesting and valuable. |