Standards

Some recent conversations with saratoga and reading various blog posts have got Me thinking about the whole concept of "standards" in D/s.

Specifically: Is it all so unqiue and personal that there is no point in trying to define/pursue standards of any kind?

The "uniqueness" argument for Me is the most compelling one mitigating against the existence of practical standards. No two Dom/mes are going to be alike, either in what They want or how They want it, exactly. That's simply a fact, and that fact argues strongly against there being any realistic common standard, against any set of "norms" that One might seek to generally "train" a submissive to that is not One's own.

The "growing and learning each other argument" I feel is weak. A Dom/me and a sub will have a million things to learn about each other once together in a relationship, regardless of how much or how little formalized "training" the sub may or may not have had at the hands of Another. One could even argue that the more experiences the submissive has had, of whatever kind, create the opportunity for a richer learning experience once in a relatoinship with an Owner.

But the strength of the uniqueness argument more than makes up for the weakness of the growing and learning argument. But perhaps there is another way around this.

I posed Myself the following question: "If there was a 'boot camp' for submissives, what would it consist of?" This is important becasue if that question can be answered, intuitively, without pouring a ton of analysis into it, then that fact creates a sort of emprical reductio ad absurdum disproof of the hypothesis that standards are not possible. And if they are possible, then it's a very short distance to "desireable" and "achieveable," and at least in the neighborhood of "enforceable."

So, what would subbie "boot camp" consist of? I think it's fairly clear that the sexual stuff, by and large, isn't worth training for. Aside from a very basic knowledge of anatomy, and certain basic aspepcts of physical training, the uniqueness monster is way too formidable to make "How to Eat Pussy" a worthwhile "class." In the non-sexual arena . . . I can see where a sub knowing how to make a bed or fold a T-shirt is a useful thing, or knowing that fabric softener doesn't go in the pot roast, etc. But do those really require a formalized "training?" They are more or less average adult skills (to varying degrees, of course). And, since there is no government without the consent of the governed and no "school" without a minimally engaged student body, I find it hard to imagine "subbie school" that consisted of "how to iron" and "the handling of delicate washables" a very rewarding educational experience for the typcial submissive. (As saratoga has writen, learning those things at the behest of one's Owner, however, is a totally different thing.)

So, no "subbie boot camp" cirriculum immediately and convincingly suggests itself. No help there, and that lack of such lends a bit more support to the "no standards" argument.

The "light," as it were, in this muddle, is a two-part sort of answer. And that is:

In a 1-on-1 situation, there is comparatively little value to a submissive having been trained by Another (little value to the current Owner and thus by extension to the submissive). But, where (if?) there is or could be a community, then standards and training can have significant value.

Why? Because any community runs more smoothly where there are agreed-upon (or least assented-to) norms. These norms define interactions between people who don't know each other intimately and allow all parties to function with at least surface safety and harmony.

Our daily vanilla lives are full of them, many of which we have never explicitly been taught and don't think about but which we know instantly and expect others to also. Example. You are waiting for a elevator. The doors open. There is one other person you don't know, already in the elevator. You enter the elevator and push your button. Now, everyone knows you don't stand six inches from the other person. You don't stand facing the other person. You don't sit down. Etc., etc. There are probably 50 "rules" about riding elevators that we all know intimately without ever having been taught them.

Now, elevators are fairly simple. As the interactions get more complex, it's necessary to write them down, analyze them, and undertake specialized training in order to understand them. We all know that "a deal's a deal," but there are lawyers who specialize in contracts because "deals" in the modern world can take on a complexity far beyond what our native "knowledge" of them can encompass. Society reognizes that complexity by not letting those who haven't passed the bar exam practice contract law.

D/s is, similarly, a highly complex set of interactions (again, this is a community setting we're discussing here -- whether such community does or can exist is a separate question). The norms are going to differ greatly in such a setting (perhaps submisisves kneel in elevators in this community?) and complexity and difference from what one's accustomed to are two strong arguments for formalized training.

It's a small thing to have salvaged from the whole issue, because D/s communities are rare, of course. For Me it was important, though, becasue while I endorse the "big tent," and judge no one's kink, etc., I do worry about any field of endeavor where the practice becomes so unique, so esoteric, so "roll your own" that there is no commonality at all.

Interestingly enough, on-line is the closest thing there is for most people to a D/s community. What norms I seek and enforce in that arena (and why) is the subject of another post.