The Complete (enough) Idiot’s Guide

The Complete (enough) Idiot's Guide to Basic Concepts in BDSM

Foreword:

The content of this essay first appeared as a set of posts in my MySpace blog. After finishing the series, it occurred to me that the concepts presented there might be useful to novice writers as well as those who might just be curious so I decided to clean up my reasoning and present it here. It is not intended to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject matter: it should be viewed more as a generalized roadmap rather than a Fodor's™ Guide.

Introduction:

I sometimes take verbal flak about my self-described Dom personality. It seems that the external face of my lifestyle doesn't fit the preconceptions the complainers hold about D/s; and they persist in pointing out that I don't own a dungeon, don't make a regular practice of hurting anyone, and rarely even tie anyone up. They are obviously confused and/or ignorant about the meaning of basic terms used in the lifestyle.

Dominance and submission (D/s), Bondage and Discipline (B&D), and Sadism and Masochism (S&M) are not all the same thing. Sometimes it is convenient to lump them all together as BDSM though, and I'm sure that is the source of a lot of the confusion. D/s describes a kind of interpersonal relationship, whereas B&D and S&M usually describe a collection of practices, in which some people may engage at some times. For example, one is much more likely to know people involved in a 24/7 D/s relationship (even though you are probably unaware of it) than one is to know anyone who regularly practices Sadism.

Just to forestall an outcry by the impatient, I'll also admit up front that the terms dominant, submissive, sadist, and masochist, are also used to describe personality characteristics. I will deal with those characteristics in a cursory fashion near the end of this essay.

Part 1: Dominance and submission

As I said, D/s describes a kind of relationship. A D/s relationship may be only one of many relationships that exist between the members of a pair of individuals, and either member, or both, may have, and probably do have, relationships with others. Any specific relationship exists only between members of a defined pair; and is usually, but not necessarily, different in type and quality from any relationship that may exist between either member of the pair, and any other individual. 

As in any relationship, a D/s relationship is driven by the roles played by the participants. In this type of relationship, the defining roles are those of the Dominant (or Top, or Dom/me or sometimes, Master/Mistress), and the submissive (or bottom, or sub, or sometimes, slave).

A dictionary is often useful in understanding terms. The Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary (2002) lists one definition of the noun dominant as follows:

"a dominant individual in a social hierarchy."

Since this is a recursive definition, using the same word as an adjective to define the noun, we need to look a little further. The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary (2002) lists a definition of the adjective dominant as:

"exercising the most influence or control."

So, to expand and clarify the first definition, we can define a Dominant as

"the individual who exercises the most influence or control in a social hierarchy."

There isn't as much dictionary support to define the noun submissive, the way we use it, so our efforts will require a little more of a stretch. Experience with the lifestyle would support another recursive definition: i.e.,

"a submissive individual in a social hierarchy."

Again, we use a term as an adjective, to define the same term as a noun. There is no shortage of definitions for the adjective, submissive, however, and the one which seems to fit best, comes from the Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary (2002):

"characterized by tendencies to yield to the will or authority of others."

Expanding and clarifying then, we define a submissive as

"an individual who tends to yield to the will or authority of others in a social hierarchy."

These definitions fit into social hierarchies of any size, even one that contains only two people - a relationship! More specifically, a D/s relationship.

Any specific relationship, and thus any D/s relationship, may be said to exist in a continuum of such relationships of the same kind, and within the D/s continuum, any particular relationship might be characterized by the degree of polarization of the roles of the participants.

I should mention that there exists a subset of D/s relationships where the polarization of roles is extreme: in the Master/slave (M/s) type of relationship dominance becomes ownership, and submission becomes slavery. In an M/s relationship, both the level of authority and responsibility of the Dom/me are radically increased, concurrently with an equally radical decrease in self-reliance and self-interest on the part of the submissive.

One of my favorite online authors (MWTB) describes Dominance and submission as aspects of a single quantity: a number line, if you will, with submission at one end of the scale and dominance at the other. In his view, then, where you fall on the line determines which role you normally play.

I prefer to think of Dominance and submission are two separate characteristics, and I believe that everyone has both characteristics, in different quantities. As separate characteristics, Dominance and submission can be described in a Cartesian two-space (plane). In this view, the polarity and other characteristics of the D/s relationship between any two people depends upon where the individuals fall on the plane.

I suspect that if we were able to assign numeric values to the Dominance and submission characteristics, a scattergram of any random sampling of individuals would show that most people fall on or near a hyperbolic curve, asymptotic to the D/s axes. This would indicate that only infrequently would one observe an individual to be both highly dominant and highly submissive. Such an individual would probably be very happy as a mid-level military officer.

The so-called vanilla relationship is not a different kind of relationship at all. It is just a situation that happens when two people are apparently at more or less the same place on the plane: i.e., no polarity. When a person's entire lifestyle is characterized as vanilla, it simply means that he/she habitually assumes that the people around him/her are social equals

As you can see, being a Dominant doesn't necessarily require that you tie anyone up, or flog them, or in any way be cruel or rude to them, and being submissive doesn't have to mean that you have any of these things done to you. Bottom line: being a Dominant requires that you make most of the important decisions in the relationship, and being submissive requires that you accept, and when expected to, implement, those decisions.

Part 2: Sadism and masochism

Let's get one thing clear, right now. This is probably going to twist some tails, but there is no such thing as a Sadomasochistic relationship. If you will follow my arguments for just a little while, you'll see why. Let's look at some history and definitions.

The term Sadism derives from certain sexual practices, described in novels written by le Comte Donatien Alphonse François de Sade, often appellated as Marquis de Sade. During his lifetime, de Sade frequently attempted and sometimes succeeded in creating real-life situations, similar to those in his novels, in which he inflicted pain on others for his own gratification.

Most dictionaries will give a definition of Sadism similar to the following:

"behavior characterized by inflicting pain (physical or emotional) on others, for the purpose of achieving sexual gratification."

Note that this definition does not require the presence of a masochist. This fact, and his (often poor) choice of victims, is the principal reason that de Sade ended his days in an asylum for the criminally insane.

In 1870, an Austrian novelist named Leopold von Sacher-Masoch published a novella titled Venus in Furs, in which, through the characters he described, he codified his obsession to be used and abused by the object of his desire. He had somewhat less success at achieving any long-term happiness in this way, in real life - I suspect a case of conflicting goals. At any rate Masoch achieved a kind of immortality, when psychiatrist Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing coined the term "masochist," in 1886, to describe such obsessions.

The dictionary definitions of masochism can be summed up as follows:

"achieving pleasure or sexual gratification from being humiliated, or from being physically or emotionally abused, either by oneself or another person."

In other words, if you get off on being hurt or embarrassed, you're probably a masochist, at least to some degree. Observe yet again, no sadist is required.

Complain all you want, but then look at the facts. 

There may be a D/s relationship, which includes Sadomasochistic overtones. There may be a love relationship, or even just a friendship with such overtones. A pair of total strangers, with no relationship at all, or only the temporary relationship of perpetrator and victim, can engage in a Sadomasochistic behaviors.

Clearly a sadist does not require a masochist in order to get his/her jollies. He/she can gain pleasure from hurting anybody, whether they enjoy it or not. In fact their enjoyment of the process might actually detract from his own.

Conversely, a masochist doesn't require a sadist, in order to have fun. Anybody willing, for whatever reason, to dish out abuse will do, even someone who detests treating people harshly. Oddly enough, even another masochist will do. If no one else can be found, a masochist is often perfectly capable of becoming the source of his/her own pain. No relationship there, because nobody else is involved.

Here's the thing about relationships:  for a relationship to exist, there have to be two personalities involved.  For both the sadist and the masochist, even if there is another person helping in their activities, that person is so completely objectified, that for all intents and purposes there is no other personality involved.  Furthermore, if you want to establish that some fact or condition characterizes a relationship, you have to show that it is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for the relationship to exist.  There's no way to do this with sadism and masochism: all of the relationships you might point to are either driven by something else, or they don't qualify as relationships.  Ergo, there is no such thing as a Sadomasochistic relationship.

So where does that leave us? Not quite in the dark. Sadism and masochism cannot themselves define a relationship, even in part; but they are personality traits, and there is some evidence to the effect that everyone possesses them to one degree or another.  As a society, we tend to ignore these traits, unless the form of expression is extreme.

The terms have also been co-opted to refer to certain behaviors or practices involving the delivery or experiencing of pain or humiliation. By mainstream standards, these practices are considered to be deviant behavior, and the personalities that actively seek to engage in them are usually considered borderline, or completely, insane.

Hold on, now! I know you don't consider your harmless little bit of fun to be evidence of insanity. I'm just telling you what you already know. If you got caught doing it, by anybody with a badge, you would be taken into custody, for your safety and that of society at large. Maybe for a very long time! Of course, if you're a masochist, the idea of confinement might not be unpalatable...

As an aside, it should be noted that sadism and masochism are not mutually exclusive personality traits. The term "switch," as used in the "lifestyle," ultimately derives from the fact that, early on, the mental health community recognized that some individuals can derive their pleasure from being on either side of the abuse process.

Most people involved in sadism and masochism today, do not try to engage in those practices as a total lifestyle (24/7). I said most. There are always exceptions, and that's why we have asylums. If that offends you, too bad. My personal standards tell me that trying to live 24/7 either giving or receiving pain with any enthusiasm, is conclusive evidence of insanity. They're my standards, and you're not going to change them.

People who just want to a have a little fun now and then, practicing Sadomasochism, usually engage in scenes.

Part 3: Bondage and Discipline

Both of these words have multiple meanings, and some more than others are relevant to the "lifestyle." Let's start with discipline. The definition that comes most readily to mind, for most people, goes something like this:

"To punish or chastise in order to gain control of another, or to enforce obedience."

Others have more to do with a learning experience:

"A specific, usually named, set of rules of behavior;"

"To train for the purpose of achieving behavior that complies with a set of rules;"

"Behavior that is in accord with an established set of rules;"

and there are more. Note the recurring theme in most of the definitions: rules of behavior. The aim of real discipline is to elicit and reinforce a particular kind of behavior. To be sure, disciplinary activity that happens in the lifestyle is often attributed to the motives specified in these definitions, but in fact, that is sometimes, perhaps even mostly, pure posturing. In that case, the so-called "discipline" is merely choreographed abuse.

What about bondage? The definition most applicable in the "lifestyle." is as follows:

"A state of being physically restrained for purposes of sexual gratification."

Other definitions which may at times be used are:

"The state of being under the control of another person;"

"Being a slave or serf;"

"Indenture, slavery, or serfdom;"

and many variants on the theme. The mental states that described aside, in "lifestyle" terms, bondage usually refers to the physical restraint of a person, using ropes, chains or a variety of other devices that limit or prohibit movement.

When bondage and/or discipline is used for purposes of behavior modification, it can be considered a true disciplinary regime. This is a normal, but not necessarily frequent or required, part of a Dominant/submissive relationship.

The use of bondage and discipline to achieve immediate sexual gratification depends on the potential of the practices to cause or experience pain, discomfort, humiliation, or helplessness, as an outcome. When used in this way, these practices lay more in the domain of Sadism and masochism.

Whether or not the target is bound, physical punishment as part of discipline may be delivered in a wide variety of methods. If you want a catalog of tools, go to your favorite fetish shop and you will no doubt find a huge array of items designed to inflict any level of pain to any body part desired. Novice disciplinarians though, should proceed with extreme caution.  It would be altogether too easy to cause permanent damage or disfigurement, through ignorance. 

The idea of an apprenticeship for disciplinarians has great appeal, but there is the problem of finding a credible instructor.  One way might be to ask for recommendations from a submissive who has participated in multiple scenes.  Before you accept such recommendations, however, be sure to perform a full-body inspection of the submissive - remember, it takes all kinds, and your advisor may think nothing of the fact that his/her body is covered with lesions and scars.

Punishment using humiliation requires more thoughtfulness, and a much more intimate knowledge of the abusee's state of mind.

Given the potential for these practices to result in injury, disfigurement and in extreme cases, even death, one seldom comes upon anyone who engages in them on a permanent, full time basis. Most often, participants in the activities engage in what is known as a scene. Before we get into a discussion of what scenes are, lets first deal with another concept: that of the Safe, Sane, and Consensual (SSC) credo.

It should be obvious even to the most casual observer, that these practices can result in great harm to some participants, and put others at risk for jail terms. To mitigate these risks, and hopefully eliminate them, ethical practitioners only engage in activities that are:

Safe - To the extent humanly possible, risks of physical and psychological damage to each participant are identified and eliminated.

Sane - All parties to the activities are nominally sane, and in control of their decisions. It should be obvious that any use of drugs or alcohol would automatically violate this condition.

Consensual - All parties are fully informed of intended and potential outcomes of the activities, and agree to participate voluntarily. It should be noted that, even if written consent is obtained, it will probably NOT provide legal protection for anyone in the event of a death, or significant physical or psychological injury to one or more participants. Let me repeat this in clearer terms: CONSENSUAL OR NOT, IF YOU KILL OR INJURE SOMEONE DURING THE ACTIVITY, EVEN ACCIDENTLY, YOU WILL IN ALL PROBABILITY BE PROSECUTED!

Sometimes participants will use another term for it, but a scene is a somewhat choreographed session, occurring over a defined period of time, with specific and clearly understood rules, which establish limits governing the type and intensity of activities to be undertaken.

One implication of the SSC credo is that consent is dynamic. Consent may be withdrawn or modified (reduced) unilaterally, at any time by either party, and such withdrawals or reductions are binding!  For this reason scene rules also usually define the safewords: i.e., words that the receiver of abuse holds in reserve, to be used only as signals that things are going too fast or too far. It is most common to have only one safeword, which stops activity altogether, but sometimes a second safeword is used to indicate a need to reduce the intensity of the activity.

Obviously, if a scene includes having the abusee gagged or otherwise silenced, some alternative means of signaling an end to the activity must be agreed upon, up front. Since most means of silencing the abusee have a significant concurrent risk of asphyxiation, such practices are generally discouraged for any level of activity beyond erotic photography.

About safewords and safesignals:  It would be extremely easy to get so involved in an activity that the disciplinarian fails to notice or heed such signals.  It is good practice to pause action at regular intervals for a reality check.  During these pauses, both the giver and receiver of discipline should clearly and distinctly reaffirm the specific signals to be used and honored.  The reaffirmation should be clear, distinct, and unambiguous - redundancy is NOT a bad thing!  The conversation might go something like this:

M: "Slave! What is your STOP safeword?"

S: "Sir! My STOP safeword is DUTCH!"

M: "Slave! Your STOP safeword is DUTCH!  Is that correct?"

S: "Yes Sir!"

M: "Slave! What is your SLOW safeword?"

S: "SIr! My SLOW safeword is AGAR!"

M: "Slave! Your SLOW safeword is AGAR!  Is that correct?"

S: "Yes Sir!"

As I said, clear, distinct, and unambiguous - and redundant.  This exchange brings up a few other things about safewords.  The words should be short and intelligible even if issued during a scream - for obvious reasons.  They should be completely out of place for the action that occurs during the scene - so that if used, they are guaranteed to stand out from the action and get attention.  If used the word should be shouted, not mumbled, and MUST BE HONORED AT ONCE!  A disciplinarian who fails to heed a safeword runs not just the risks associated with the activity, but may find him/herself unable to find any willing playmates - ever again.