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.
11 comments:
I suspect there is no BDSM "community" in the singular sense. There are potential communities where we gather in congenial groupings, and in those settings, it is my experience that customs develop that define acceptable norms of behavior and etiquette. It is an interesting exercise.
I have come to sense, more and more lately, that the growth of online connections and circles has somehow weakened the drive to form the more direct and realtime communities -- and that where those interactions still happen, they are somehow paler and more tepid. I am not sure why that is so, but it does seem to be the case. It may be that it is not the existence of the online world. Perhaps it is something more generational; or something else altogether... whatever, it is a change I find a little sad. We are challenged to grow in unique ways when we are asked to define what is important to us as a "culture." I think we lose something when we don't engage in that together face to face once in awhile.
swan
Perhaps your standard could also include the idea that, although it may be a big tent, there is such a thing as abuse, and it is at least morally questionable not to call it that. I find that there is one author, in particular, who seems to excuse almost anything a woman does to a man. (She did, however, once tell a man whose Domme wished him to convert to Islam that he should not do that. That was, apparently, beyond the pale.)
Responsible members of a communnity protect that community by speaking out when they believe that the standards of that community are being violated.
Candace: While it seems reasonable to assume that there is a "core cirriculum," every time I tried to define what would really be in there I ended up with a constantly-shortening string until I had nothing left. I end up thinking that the best "submissive school" might be something like traditoinal English Butler training; the exclusively sexual/FemDom aspects could then be added on to the liking of the Owner in question.
swan: In general I agree. I do find that on-line communities do serve a special, valuable purpose (or can) for those people who for varying reasons can't or sometimes aren't ready to embrace real-life D/s.
jack: Thank you for your kind words. I do see a value in mentoring; and I often find Myself (accidentally, usually) doing that. As for formalizing that, it's a fine idea -- it's simply one I don't have the time or energy to pursue with the attention it deserves.
anonymous: I'm not sure where you got the idea that the "big tent" (at least as I conceive of it) includes or condones abuse. Certainly not from My posts -- if you have read at all carefully you'll have seen Me stress love, concern, communication, and even humility as major repsonsibilities of a Dominant. So either your reading comprehension skills are lacking, you can't find your way back to the abuse-endorsing blog, or you're trying to create some sort of issue where none exists.
You speak of community - is it really sufficient for the members of a community to do no wrong according to their own lights. If my neighbor say to another neighbor "I am going home now. I will make my husband kill
his favorite dog, cook it, and then eat it." , don't I have a responsibility to at least express my unease about how this man is being treated.
Well, the short answer is of course you can and should express your unease where abuse is happening. But no BDSM community I'm familiar with, real or virtual, endorses such behavior.
Quite frankly, I find it insufficent to simply not endorse some behavior. Are you content to say that "I and my community do not endorse rape."? I live in Germany, and there are many here who can truthfully say that they did not endorse the racial policies of the NSDAP.
Frankly, I find your attempts to equate Femdom with abuse silly and sad. If there are Dommes out there writing blogs endorsing/condoning/promoting abuse, then you should take up your case with Them, not with Me.
I don't like deleting comments that aren't spam but if you can't respond to WHAT YOU READ HERE, or can't comprehend what you read here, then your future comments won't appear.
"you should take up your case with Them, not with Me."
You began a discussion about standards for a community. I suggested that the standards might include a commitment by each member of the community to speak out against abuse when the member of the community believes he or she has encountered it. Where have I made the equation FemDom = abuse?
You probably live in another community where failure to report child abuse
if you have reasonable grounds to suspect that it has taken place
will meet with disapproval. Now replace the word "child" with "FemDom", and delete all of the text up to but not including the word "failure".
You make the suggestion in every comment, disingenuously bringing up extreme/unrealistic cases as though they are commonplace and part and parcel of typcial FemDom relatoinships. They are not. But something tells Me you already know that. But I'll play along for one more round -- it's good to be the Queen (of One's own blog, anyway).
FemDom "abuse" is inherently different from chlid abuse, since a chlid can not "consent" in the same way as an adult can. We ARE talking about adults here, yes? If you know of any person(s) being held against hir or her will by deranged FemDoms, by all means you should contact the authorities.
Should community standards include "a commitment by each member of the community to speak out against abuse when the member of the community believes he or she has encountered it?" Yes, but it also must then include a committment by all to examine their own behavior in painful detail and not resort to charging "abuse" when things don't go one's way, since, again, the community in question is composed entriely of adults engaged in consensual behavior.
Post a Comment