The (New and Improved) Loving Dominant

by John Warren

  Fromm argued that the masochists, failing repeatedly at being strong and independent, became even more weak and passive to reduce the conflict between what they want and what they could accomplish, like someone who says, “If I can’t play perfect baseball, I’ll become the team clown and everyone will think I’m fucking up on purpose.”

  The sadists, on the other hand, were seen as recognizing their inferiority and powerlessness and seeking to control others to gain an ersatz strength in place of real strength. In effect, he saw us as failed admirals playing with toy boats in the bathtub.

  Jean Genet, the author, drew on Freud’s third field goal attempt in his philosophical classic, Being and Nothingness, where he argued that both sadism and masochism were responses to a fear of mortality, of death. In his play, The Balcony, lawyers and other powerful individuals played out masochistic fantasies in a surreal house of domination. The theme implies that they are doing this to strike a psychic balance and atone for their sadistic behavior in the real world. It’s as if they were saying, “I hit him; now you hit me, and everyone will be even.”

  A Swedish psychiatrist, Lars Ullerstam, supported Jean Genet’s hypothesis regarding masochism as an exculpatory behavior. However, he pointed out that the presence of powerful, rich men in such BDSM brothels may also be because they, unlike their less powerful counterparts, can afford to pay the fees involved. Thus, it may be that the overwhelming number of lawyers who dominatrixes report seeing as clients, are not expiating sins particular to this profession. They may simply be making an obscene amount of money and, thus, be able to afford the dominatrix’s service.

  Jessica Benjamin, in her Powers of Desire, alleged that both sadistic and masochistic behavior were fueled by a need for recognition. The masochist suffers to be recognized as worthwhile by the sadist while the sadist subjugates another person to force recognition from him or her. Benjamin, on the other hand, gets her recognition by writing books.

  During the conference that followed publication of the Playboy Foundation Report in the 1970s, researchers had a chance to differentiate sadism from dominance. W.B. Pomeroy described a segment of a filmed scene which depicted a waxing. He had noticed that the “sadist” was watching, not just the place where the wax was falling, but also the expression on his partner’s face. When this sadist detected that she was getting close to the edge, he raised the candle to reduce the intensity of the stimulation. Pomeroy commented, “It suddenly occurred to me that the masochist was almost literally controlling the sadist’s hand.”

  Sadly, a less imaginative colleague pooh-poohed the idea and insisted that “genuine” sadists are not interested in a willing partner. (I’m personally glad this myopic soul was not present at the discovery of penicillin. He probably would have thrown out the moldy bread.)

  Working in what is known as the Object Relations School of psychology, Margaret Mahler attempted to explain sadism and masochism by looking at a child’s early relationship to objects. Rather than placing the critical age in puberty as did Freud, she held that such desires begin before the age of four.

  In sort of a Cliff’s Notes explanation, I’ll just say that object relations theory says that children go through a series of phases in which they seek either greater independence or greater reassurance. Mahler argued that both masochism and sadism come from a failure to have these needs satisfied at the proper time. In effect, the person is trapped repeating the critical phase in hopes of “doing better this time.’

  For example, she believed a sadist may have been unable to form a satisfactory relationship with his or her mother and turns to sadism in an attempt to make a controlled relationship in which he or she can try to recreate that relationship. On the other hand, the masochist was able to form a satisfactory bond but was unable to break it at the appropriate time. Thus, he or she is seeking a relationship from which a clean break is possible.

  There has been good news in recent years. When this book was first written in the early 1990s, the primary reference for the American Psychiatric Association was the DSM IIIr (Diagnostic Statistical Manual, third edition, revised). This “learned tome” was not at all kind to us, holding that to seek either sexual submission or dominance was a treatable disorder. (Of course, they termed it either Sexual Masochism or Sexual Sadism, bringing in a different kettle of fish.) Interestingly enough, according to DSM IIIr, it was all right to simply have these fantasies, but seeking them out that made one a candidate for the place with the latex wallpaper.

  A person could dream of going to a loving leather-clad woman. He could burn in his bed each night with unslaked desire for the hug of the rope and the kiss of the whip. However, one trip down to Mistress Harsh’s House of Loving Leather made him a potential resident of the laughing academy.

  Intent was immaterial. In the view of the authors, someone who pleased his or her lover with a bit of erotic spanking was lumped right along with a creep setting fire to kittens.

  Fortunately, through the efforts of kink activists and kink-friendly therapists lead by the author/ activist Race Bannon, DSM IV presented us in a much better light. Now, to be treatable, we must either be disturbed by our desires or have those desires take over our worlds to the point where they disrupt out daily lives.

  Even Madonna has a theory about why we like what we like. In an interview with Newsweek magazine, she suggested that her sexuality may stem from her Catholic upbringing and is quoted as saying, “When I was growing up, there were certain things people did for penance; I know people who slept on coat hangers or kneeled on uncooked rice on the floor…and as for me, I think somehow things got really mixed up. There was some ecstasy involved in that.

  “And the whole idea of crucifixion – a lot of that, the idea of being tied up. It is surrendering yourself to someone. I’m fascinated by it. I mean, there is a lot of pain-equals- pleasure in the Catholic church, and that is also associated with bondage and S&M.”

  From the index cards of a 19th century cataloger to the musings of the Material Girl herself, this is a sample from the varied buffet table of psychological explanations of BDSM – or to be more precise, Sadism and Masochism. You are free to pick and choose as it pleases you.

  Suggested Reading:

  S&M: Studies in Sadomasochism (Thomas Weinberg ed.) Different Loving (Brame, Brame & Jacobs)

  Why would someone want to be submissive?

  For myself, I believe that many submissives are strong people who are taking a vacation from their responsibilities. By giving their considerable power to others, they benefit from the aphrodisiac of contrast. To shift, willingly, from powerful to powerless gives their libidos extraordinary jolts.

  This erotic nature of contrast may explain why, during the many years I spent in Asia, I never encountered what I considered a truly submissive woman. Most women in Asian cultures are steeped in submission; it is not a choice, nor is it a change. For me, the fire was missing from their submission. They got no more of a sensual charge from their submission than American women get from signaling a cab or buying a meal.

  Many of the submissives I have talked to find that their attraction to the scene is based largely on this contrast between having power and control and releasing themselves to simply experience powerlessness at the hands of another whom they trust. Almost everyone knows the sheer joy of coming home after a hard day’s work and slipping off the wingtips or high heels and putting on a well-worn pair of slippers. Many submissives simply carry it a step further and slip off the entire business-mandated Type A personality to submit to a trusted dominant.

  There is a misunderstanding on the part of some wannabe doms and many in the vanilla public about the essence of submission. Part of the fault is our phrasing. We speak of “a submissive person,” and that is not precisely correct. A better phrase would be “a person who is submissive to…” This understandable error is created and compounded by playacting in the cyber world and misleading plots in pornographic novels.

  In the real world the na
ture of the submissive is often quite different from what is seen in these limited purviews of fiction and fantasy. This is particularly true in the case of submissive women. These ladies are not submissive to just any individual who happens to want to play as a dominant or as a top.

  A woman who has elected to give her submissive side permission to play is, in my opinion, stronger and more courageous than those of her vanilla sisters who have that side and do not let it show. Such a woman is not likely to submit herself to anyone who just happens to own a whip.

  Far from simply waiting for a dominant or top to appear, these women seek and select the person to whom they will submit. In turning over their power to this individual (or, more rarely, these individuals), the submissive woman forms a bond that is often stronger than that of a conventional sexual dyad.

  By the same token, depending on the personal style of both the submissive and the dominant, the submissive woman in such an affiliation may be quite active and aggressive outside of the scene portion of the relationship.

  Submissive men are both more complex and simpler than their female counterparts. Either because of the nature of the male/female dichotomy, such as early childhood conditioning and the nature of our society, many male submissives are much less selective of whom they submit to. While a submissive female is a rare sight in the BDSM clubs, submissive males in search of a master or mistress make up the bulk of any given night’s attendance.

  Some submissives report say that they have chosen their role because they found that the strength and control they have in their vanilla lives interfere with their sensual enjoyment. A number of years ago, I had a relationship with a brilliant and successful psychologist who had to be bound and helpless in order to reach orgasm.

  Her explanation was consistent and cogent. Before discovering bondage, she found that, as she approached orgasm during intercourse, an anxiety would appear that would quite overwhelm the building passion. This anxiety did not appear during masturbation. Examining the anxiety in a cool and detached manner as if it were a symptom reported by a client, she concluded that she had been socialized to please and cater to her partner during sex. She concluded that her subconscious mind, recognizing that during climax she would be out of control, was sabotaging the orgasm.

  Her solution was to make the desire-to-please irrelevant. Because when she was bound she could not do anything either to please or displease her partner, she found that bondage allowed her, in her own words, “to wallow in sensation.” When she was tied, she was able to reach orgasm repeatedly.

  An alternate explanation, offered by another member of the psychological community, suggested that the root cause was, instead, a deep-seated guilt about non-marital sex. In effect, her subconscious was punishing her for engaging in “sinful” behavior. In this scenario, the bondage “gave her permission” to enjoy sex because it wasn’t her “fault.”

  A submissive man allowed that guilt did play a significant factor in his love of bondage. As he put it, “It is difficult to get past the Calvinist idea that feeling good isn’t enough. There must be some greater purpose, some tangible benefit for society.” Being bound and helpless freed him from the need to search for that benefit.

  Other submissives have said that they have found, in loving submission and certain pleasure/pain activities, a way of coming to terms with legacies of emotional pain. For example, it is not uncommon for a submissive to be drawn to recreating scenes of abuse or rape with a loving partner acting the part of the aggressor. While, on the surface, this might be seen as counterproductive, those I have spoken to are unanimous in declaring that the psychodrama helped them “get control of the trauma.”

  The logic seems to be that the original act left the victim with a sense of powerlessness, but reenacting it in an environment of BDSM, where he or she can set the parameters of the action and even abruptly halt the scene with a safeword, gives a feeling of empowerment.

  I should note here that these submissive individuals, both male and female, initiated the idea of using a scene psychodrama in this way. I would strongly caution any dominant not to coerce a submissive into such scenes with the thought of providing a sort of home-brew therapy. The dynamics of control seem to indicate that a suggestion of this sort must originate from the individual most directly affected.

  Other submissives report that BDSM helps them deal with emotional pain by allowing them to “go away,” to escape into the intense sensuality and endorphinin- engendered haze where memories and even rational thought becomes secondary. This is often referred to as “subspace,” but, as with much in this world, the criteria vary greatly for what “subspace” actually is and how one gets there.

  Of course, this going-away isn’t unique to BDSM. I doubt that there are many of us who have not set down an engrossing book to discover we were cramped and ached from the position in which we had been sitting. The book literally took us away from our bodies.

  A friend who is active in the arts observes that the first five minutes of a play or musical presentation may be accompanied by coughs and other noises from the audience. Soon, these vanish as the performance lifts the audience from the mundane sensations of their bodies to a higher plane where noises from tickles in the throat and squeaks from uncomfortable chairs cannot follow.

  When these submissives talk about their use of BDSM to deal with their pain, it’s not clear whether they are describing a benefit or a cause. Did the emotional pain lead the person to choose a submissive role in BDSM play? While this is possible, I could equally persuasively argue that the person was already submissive and was simply using the BDSM scene to deal with the existing pain.

  Another need or cause cited by some submissives is that in their early lives they sealed away their emotions. In some cases, this was the result of abuse; in others, it was because the family ignored or concealed emotion. As one submissive woman put it, “By being submissive to my master and relinquishing all control to him, we are slowly tearing down the protective walls I built because of some things which happened in my childhood. For me, BDSM is a way of confronting my fears and allowing myself to grow emotionally. What I find most appealing about BDSM are the emotional and psychological aspects – although the physical is also fun. Would I still find it appealing if my childhood had been different? I don’t know, but I doubt it.”

  Another woman commented that before she took part in BDSM activities she had been very passive and stuck in vanilla relationships. However, after experiencing the intense communications necessary to make a BDSM relationship work, she found herself being more forthright.

  Is the increased ability to communicate simply a benefit of the scene, or did the blocking these women experienced cause their submissive feelings? Did the blocking and the feelings have the same original source? Obviously, there isn’t any clear, single answer.

  Why would someone want to be dominant?

  Some individuals take the inverse of my relaxing- from-power explanation of submissive behavior to state that dominants, then, must be weak individuals who need to take the power from others to experience a contrast to their helplessness.

  Aside from the knee-jerk reaction that this ain’t so, the available evidence doesn’t seem to fit. Before I took to writing full time, I was the vice president of a successful market research company. Many of my fellow dominants in and out of the major scene organizations hold stressful, high-pressure jobs and do very well.

  If our motivation isn’t the reverse of the submissive’s motivation, what is it? I have come to the conclusion that the essence of what motivates me are two interlocking items. One factor is that I get a tremendous charge from my partner’s pleasure. BDSM is a wonderful way to get someone off more intensely than most vanilla people can imagine.

  Many teachers and guides say that one of their major rewards is to see someone excited by a new idea or an unexpected vista. Having been a college professor, I know exactly what they mean, and I can see a definite kinship between that feeling and
the feeling I get watching a woman in a paroxysm of pleasure. There is a feeling of accomplishment knowing I have helped someone climb higher and go further than he or she could have gone alone.

  Another factor in my attraction to the dominant role is that the BDSM situation allows me to be in almost complete control. In today’s modern world, this is a situation that is becoming more and more difficult to attain. In fact, the more powerful one becomes, the more it seems that he or she is buffeted by collateral factors and outside forces.

  For example, to a naive observer, I may seemed to be in complete control in my office. However, I have to depend on my employees doing their jobs correctly. I have to depend on suppliers to be on the ball. Much of what I seem to control I really “managed,” a much less satisfactory situation. In BDSM, I am in complete control, to fail or succeed as my talents and imagination permit. I control every factor, and I do not have to depend on anyone. Any object I depend on (whips, ropes, suspension gear) I can test and retest until I am certain it works. Being in that kind of control pleases me intensely.

  This, of course, may not be the true cause of these feelings. No mirror is completely accurate and ego is a subtle distorter of fact. I can only urge you to look into your own hearts and, most importantly, enjoy.

  Consent and Consensuality

  Consent is more than just an ideal for BDSM relationships; it is a touchstone, an axiom, a sacrament. Without full, knowing consent, relationships are in immediate danger of becoming brutal exploitative affairs without beauty or elegance.

  Consent can vary from the very specific (“You can do this, this and this, but not that”) to a simple knowing acceptance (“I trust that you will do nothing to harm me”). However, it must be constantly present and mutually respected within the relationship.