Comments | kattahj: on doms and subs

kattahj

on doms and subs

Nov 18, 2003 23:16

piedmargaret had an entry that led to a discussion that got me thinking on the whole dominant/submissive thing. It wasn't what her entry was about as such, so this is more a spin-off than an actual comment.

Thing is, I don't get the whole idea of dominant and submissive ( Read more... )

kinky, sex, fic talk

Comments 17

musesfool November 18 2003, 14:44:56 UTC

*shrug ( ... )

kattahj November 18 2003, 15:17:21 UTC

I see the sex BDSM thing (with the dom/sub) and the relationship idea of a dominant and a submissive as completely different. And as I said, one I can understand (and might even participate in) and the other I don't.

I thought that was pretty clear from the post, but since the first two comments both seem to have missed the point with about a mile I'd say there's probably something missing in the way I explained things.

I am not squicked by BDSM. I am squicked by the idea that a *relationship* will consist of one person who runs the show and another who is yieldy. The coffee-drinker and the coffee-maker, to put it in office metaphores. Apparently it's a fanfic convention to write characters that way, although thank God I seem to have escaped some of it.

taraljc November 18 2003, 14:57:21 UTC

I think, when it comes to fetish stuff, it's all about trust. sub/dom is still roleplaying. no matter what, you're still in control. which is I think why folks who enjoy it find it sexy--because there's no actual "domination" becasue it's by choice. But I can udnerstadn the "huh?' reaction. You should heard the conversations my sister and I had after we saw "Secretary."

I admit, I have a slight slight bondage/submission kink. I think a childhood full of Peal White-type situations in fiction coded as romance obviously had a larger impact on my sexuality than I realised at age 8, tying my nekkid Barbie dolls to chairs *lol*.

But would I ever want to be bound against my will? Fuck no. But it's the "against my will" part that squicks me--not the idea of being tied or pinned down.

kattahj November 18 2003, 15:11:15 UTC

Well, see, that's the sex thing. I can get the sex thing. I'd totally like doing some kinky bondage thing at some point, if I really trusted the person I do it with.

But the idea that it works that way in a *relationship*, that's what I don't get. That some people are always strong-willed and others are weak-willed, and those people will be drawn to each other.

taraljc November 18 2003, 15:16:25 UTC

But the idea that it works that way in a *relationship*, that's what I don't get.

Which was why Secretary got my sister and I talking, actually. Because we were so weirded to find it a sweet, romantic film, becasue you wouldn't think ti would be... and yet it was one of the most touching romances I think I've ever seen, as well as one of the most interesting relationships I've seen in fiction. Becasue while sex was a part of it, it ultimately wasn't about that at all. And it definitely gave me a new perspective on sub/dom.

If it's by consent--if the person submitting is choosing to submit, and the person dominating is not doing it to control the other person outside of the control they freely give them, then I can sorta see how it works. I just can't imagine it working that way for me either, tho. But I can see where, if you're a control freak, giving up a measure of control could be so freeing....

kattahj November 18 2003, 15:20:20 UTC

Okay, I haven't seen it and don't know what it's about, so I don't know if we're now talking about the same thing or not. We definitely weren't before. :-)

Was this a case where it was actually about mundane decisions - i.e. if I want to move and you want to stay, we stay because you say so, if we both want the last slice of bread you get it and so forth?

Equal pairings logicalargument November 18 2003, 15:44:38 UTC

Undoubtedly one of the many reasons why I like your Wes/Doyle fic ... apart from the fact that I like anything with Doyle, of course :-) ... is that when you pioneered Wes/Doyle (one of the privileges associated with the fact that, having never been on the show at the same time, the characters had absolutely no canonical relationship from which divergence must be justified), you established it from the beginning as an equal pairing. As I mentioned in piedmargaret's LJ, it's as much about mutual respect as about mutual lust. That has been picked up by everyone else I've seen writing Wes/Doyle, and it's a refreshing change from most of the Wes-slash I've seen out there.

Re: Equal pairings kattahj November 19 2003, 02:26:57 UTC

Pioneered. *grin*

Sorry, just liked the word. Thanks for using it - and for the kind words in general.

And yes, that was always pretty important to me. Not in the sense that I went in thinking "how can I make them equals?" or that I don't like other possible pairings for them (though I'm a bit hesitant to Wesley/Angel). Just playing off the sidekick status and their differences while still keeping some sort of balance between them...

mudskipper November 19 2003, 04:29:29 UTC

Word ( ... )

kattahj November 19 2003, 05:00:20 UTC

That's very interesting. I haven't been in that situation myself, but I think it's probably a good way to handle things.

As for Foucault and all that - well, yeah. I think it's inevitable that we all manipulate each other. "There is no one, no one at all, never has been and never will be a lover, male or female, who hasn't an eye on - in fact, they rely on - tricks they can try on their partner. They're hoping their lover will help them and keep them, promote them, support them. Don't blame them, you're the same!" :-)

But the point to me is that we manipulate each *other*. It's not one-sided, or shouldn't be. And if we are good people, we try to avoid doing it when we see that this is what we're doing...

But of course, I'm extremely single and have a hard time getting close to *anyone*, so I'm pretty much talking out of my hat.

mudskipper November 19 2003, 05:37:13 UTC

well, yeah, I think that was what I was trying to get at... that the regular, day-to-day power play we all engage in, whether it be teacher-student or parent-child or friend-friend or lover-lover (-lover), is inevitable, but that doesn't mean it should be one sided. More like: "Today we do my thing, tomorrow yours... and everyone is happy!"

For example, I have an old friend from high-school, who wanted to join the army (for some reason), but didn't because she was afraid her boyfriend would leave her if she left home for that long. The way I see it, she gave up a huge dream of hers to be with him, and romantic as it may be (if you're into Harlequin), it makes me slightly sick...

(and btw, theyr'e showing Secretary at Filmstudion tomorrow)

iroshi November 19 2003, 09:44:24 UTC

I quote from Rhiannon Shaw's fic often when trying to explain why some people *want* to be submissive...

He watched that sink in and nodded. "Aidan? What do you think? Can you think, or are you stuck on just reacting?"

"'Just reacting' is one of the addictive aspects of being a slave," Aidan replied with more deference in her voice than MacLeod was used to hearing. "But I can still think. I'm working on it."
...
"Do you know why being a slave has its addictive aspects, brother? Especially the way it's handled in the BDSM crowd, but even in years past ( ... )

kattahj November 20 2003, 04:28:09 UTC

I think "vacation" is the prime word in that fic. If someone has to make a lot of decisions, not doing it is obviously pleasing. Even if it's "for real" rather than a game. I don't find it attractive, and I wouldn't write about it, but I respect it.

But *no one* should stop making decisions for any lenghty period of time. Sure anyone has the *right* to. Anyone also has the right to cut their arms open or eat only hamburgers. That doesn't mean I have to see it as a valid choice. And what's more, it's harmful to *others*, not just to oneself as the other examples. Maybe in a two-person relationship, there's a limit to how much harm just tagging along can do (unless one is married to Charles Manson), but I don't like seeing it there any more than I like seeing it on a larger scale.

If people want to give up all decision making and the person they put in charge is a good one, I can't and shouldn't stop them. That doesn't mean I have to like it, and it *definitely* doesn't mean I have to include them in my fics.

iroshi November 20 2003, 04:43:03 UTC

That doesn't mean I have to like it, and it *definitely* doesn't mean I have to include them in my fics.

Oh, absolutely. I would never suggest this was the case. You asked a question that I attempted to answer - the question of WHY. That's all.

Though I think what someone "should" or "should not" do is best left up to themselves, as long as they're not harming anyone else.

kattahj November 20 2003, 05:11:56 UTC

Oh, absolutely. I would never suggest this was the case. You asked a question that I attempted to answer - the question of WHY. That's all.

Well, I think my "why" was more of a "why is this considered so necessary and attractive in fic", but your answer was good for *one* why, so thank you!

Though I think what someone "should" or "should not" do is best left up to themselves, as long as they're not harming anyone else.

In the sense that they have a right to choose it and shouldn't be forcibly stopped, yes. But I still believe there are right choices and wrong ones.