I was reading a discussion online about a book, and people were giving their reviews of it.  It was a book on femdom relationships.  One thing people kept pointing out about this book is how they enjoyed the fact that the author pushed a certain idea: that d/s is about what the sub/slave can do for the domme, not about what the domme can do to/with the sub.  Apparently these people had run-ins with those who thought d/s was about nothing more than beatings and sex.

My question is, why can’t it be both?  Most people I know in d/s relationships have a solid balance of both elements.  It’s a relationship.  As such, both people do nice things for each other.  The sub acquiesces to the domme’s will  in non-play ways, but there is still play, kink, and pervocity in the relationship.  Play and d/s do not have to be mutually exclusive.  You can have a relationship with both.  In fact, I’d argue that most successful d/s relationships have lots of both.

And the play is mutually beneficial.  I get tired of hearing people proclaim that play is something that only the sub wants.  Both people are getting something out of it, although that “something” can vary.  Individual acts may or may not be enjoyable for the sub, though they can deepen the d/s or provide catharsis.  Even if he’s genuinely pleading for her to stop.  They myth that dommes don’t enjoy playing is usually spread by those who desire some form of payment for playing.  In the real world, women can be just as pervy as men.  There are sadistic women out there who take genuine joy from beating a sub, humiliating him, making him do disgusting things, pushing his limits, and various other forms of pervery.  Unfortunately, the voices of the vocal minority are much more prevalent.

2 Responses to “Balance”

  1. Ferns Says:

    Ha! I believe my comments were added to that discussion of which you speak so cryptically and I totally agree with you.

    I really got the impression that the relationship model being espoused was one in which the dominant did not enjoy play, but gave it as an almost reluctant ‘gift’ for her submissive’s pleasure. What?!

    A ‘gift’?! Oh hell no!

    I play because I *want to* and if I don’t want to I don’t. And when I play, we *both* get delirious hotness and fun out of it because it’s awesome and hot and fun!!

    I actually like the premise of the book as the counter to *all of the other “How to do femdom” books* that treat dominant women as fetish delivery machines. They sell the kinky version of the old cosmo magazine articles “How to drive your man wild in bed.” Gah!! It’s exactly the same tripe women have been told for 20 years and is all about his arousal, his orgasm, his cock… Come on!

    So yeah, on the book, I offer a bit of support and a bit of outrage, but probably LESS outrage than I get with most ‘How to do femdom’ books. They all pretty much suck unless they say “Do what makes you and yours happy”, which is, frankly, a pretty unmarketable tome.


  2. pureliquidkink Says:

    @Ferns- Your last paragraph nails it. Most of the femdom books are total sludge. And given the huge variety of ways to have a femdom relationship, no book or article is going to be relevant to everyone.

    I get irritated because it seems everything out there is either cock-centric or of the “it’s all about her” approach. There’s hardly anything about *mutual* fulfillment. Grr.

    And judging by many peoples’ writings, it seems almost like getting turned on by bdsm is somehow wrong. This coming from a community of nonconformists. I don’t get it at all.

Leave a reply... or squirrels will eat your face.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: