‘Belts; Bible and BDSM’ is part of the series on sexuality and religion

Belts; Bible and BDSM: a plea for God in the Dungeon

We all know how helpful belts can - literally - be to keep good things, like your pants, up. But also in a more figurative sense; they is something to belts that is striking.

Take for example the term ‚Bible Belt’. This is stands informally for a region in the south-eastern and south-central United States. It is called ‘Bible Belt’ because the socially conservative evangelical protestants that live in those areas do actively advocate a traditional position with regard to sexuality; a position allegedly derived from the Bible and that suits the term ‘sex-negativism’ (Easton and Hardy).

For our sake we can describe sex negativism as the idea that there is something wrong with our sexuality as the result of the ‘Fall into Sin’; even to the extent that sex is mostly seen as sinful or connected with sin. This also goes vice versa; just consider a phrase like ‘living in sin’.

As a consequence, current sexual praxis that does not reflect the customs as they were four thousand years ago, are being rejected as morally wrong, perverse or both.

Well, even in BDSM circles, some sexual praxis is being questioned, so yeah, perhaps there is such a thing as wrong kind of sex, but the same goes for politics, scientific theories or, indeed, theology: it is not all gold that shines. We carry many beliefs over our lifetime, but we soon discover that not all our beliefs can be upheld; we change.

However, the idea that sex-negativism is actuality that what the Bible teaches is itself an example of such false belief. Elsewhere and also likely in this blog, I have and will argue that this idea is not the only option that is available. Nevertheless it the concept of ‘wrong sex’ is strangely enough equally welcomed by most within the ‘Bible Belt’ and by some that rather prefer to use the ‘belt’ for something ‘unbiblical’, like marking the back of your lover.

It seems this contrast in positions does constitute a polar dualism that gives energy to both sides for condemning the other; the more wrong the other is, the more right you are. Either you condemn those who do what you cannot do yourself, even when you - secretly - wish so (Bible Belts), or it is about condemning those who forbid you to do what you wish, condemning them hard, as you feel hurt by their rejection (BDMS Belts).

Yet, during his way towards an integrated BDSM, Sir Cameron soon recognized, that as any act, also kinky sexual acts have a facet which we can describe as the moral sphere. Not for nothing have the pioneers of BDSM-theory hammered on moral issues, clothed in now well known phrases like ‘consensual kink’ or ‘safe, sane and sound’. We all realize, that in order to feel good about what we do, we need to reflect on our morality. When we do so - despite living in a post-Christian culture – we soon find out that many our ideas about ethics are historically rooted in precisely those texts that are used to condemn kink or the rejection of this.

Sir Cameron takes a different stance and there is a simple reason for that: I believe that taking what a tradition claims to be the meaning of a text for the one and only possible meaning is a gross mistake. For the first 150 years or so, there were many different Gospels in Christianity (up to thirty); there was no biblical canon and no agreement on what represented the Truth . To conclude from this that we can then come away from Christianity and say, “It’s so full of contradictions that we cannot trust it”, seems to over do it a little.

Now, I am certainly not arguing we should trust tradition unconditionally, or regard it as harmless – which fundamentalism obviously is not - but we have to see the past in its own context. Critically spoken, this means that unless we have very compelling arguments for claiming an indisputable Truth derived from old texts, we better simply acknowledge that we cannot be sure about what Jesus said and what tradition claims to be his words. We have no historical records. We have copies and translations of copies; albeit in good quantities.

We, as BDSM-theorists, stand in the same tradition as conservative theologians and I see no convincing reason why we should not use our past and the development of our culture as a source of inspiration that we can and might use for theorizing on the many coloured sides of BDMS, both theoretically as practical.

It is not a matter of legitimisation - as the authority of the Church is also a presumed one - but rather a question of interpretation. We have the same right to reflect on our culture and past as any other person; no exception when it comes to ‘Holy Scriptures’.

If there is Truth to be found in it, there is nothing to fear. Truth - however vague this notion might seem - does allow you to seek and find it, as long as you remain true both to the Truth and to yourself. In this sense there is no real problem in asking what the Bible could mean for you. If you only can understand the Bible as sex-negative, you will find condemnation, if you are open for other interpretations, it might actually be of help: not only in understanding our own past or our current ideas, but also in dealing with difficulties we meet in our contacts with people that adhere to certain dogmas.

Particularly within the BDSM community, we are aware that only by accepting others as they are, is the first step to understanding them. Even when we personally do not grasp the point, we still can learn a lot from each other.

We do not have to go far to see, how those that are in bondage within the Bible Belt do suffer under their own teachings. They are facing the same or similar urges in themselves as we do. They try to find a different solution, that works for them or not. We also see that there is a lot of false superiority. When we simply belief in our own convictions and experiences, we do know the whole issue is a matter of how you see yourself function in the world, with all its ethical and religious diversity.

Coming from a conservative tradition myself, I can tell all of you, that there are many happy people, kind people too, they really can be exemplary and do to a certain extent show nice qualities, like being wise, generous, loving, caring and forgiving. But these are not virtues that can be exclusively claimed by a particular group or religion; we all can be like that, if we see the necessity of it and have learned how to do it.

Certainly, not all inside the leather scene will feel equally attracted to the approach I take here, nor should they. As long as the sincere wish to understand oneself out of a religious tradition is acknowledged. Many of us do that, as many religions offer ways of deepening our own experience. All should this not be understood as claiming that all religions say one and the same thing. They do not; instead they provide different answers to similar questions. Not the answers are universal, but rather the questions for as far as they are true human questions in which we try to find an understanding of our selves and the world we live in.

We own ourselves, and we are free to choose how we wish to explain the world as we experience it. Taking a look at our thoughts, reflect on it and be open to how others see the same things differently is not a weakness, but rather a way to find out more about the world as it is too. Only together we are humanity; an isolated individual view is only one of the many.

We may be ourselves, we should be ourselves, but we may also be with others, as opposites or as close allies, as long as we not forget that the world itself is larger and stranger as just the few of us.

Next time, we will look at the Goddess. Please come back and rate me +1.

Sir Cameron

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington with a focus on woman’s issues. Todays post is an open letter regarding one of her blogs: 

http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/my-shockingly-ordinary-rape-story-and-what-i-want-to-tell-my-daughters/ 

I was not sure if Valerie wished my response on her blog, so I left her the option to post it or not. As I think her and mine ideas can be valuable for my readers, I do herewith post my response to Valerie as an open letter that is showing both my comments and my appraisal regarding her decision to share her rape story. Any sound person and particularly any sound BDSM-theorist will be against rape, abuse and all other forms of non-consensual intimacy. Yet it plays a role in our community, as elsewhere Please read Valerie's blog entry first..

___

Valerie, thank you so much for sharing your story with us and for pointing out that body language and the impression you make towards a man or other potential rapists is not unimportant. Yet, even when we send particular signals to others, this is still not the same as consent, even not saying no, does not count as consent for me. Agreement is a clear yes from both sides.

As a former bible scholar and now sex-positive feminist, I endorse the empowerment of the feminine, in all genders, but see this only works properly when we have clear and good ethics that are aimed at enjoying sexuality for the privilege it is, or should be. Nevertheless for the BDSM community rape remains a difficult topic. As a sadist and slaveholder, I regularly find myself is situations where rape or abuse is on our minds; unfortunately this does not only happen in the dungeon. It takes a lot of control sometimes, but luckily I do have the required self control and I wish never to loose it, as this would force me to qualify myself as sick.

It is my clear conviction, that seeing a victim in the need of rape is a false image. The points you make in your blog, regarding sending signals by flirting, looking or being dressed in a certain way or to be on particular places that might be dangerous all make sense and will be of importance, but can not function to justify any hostile sexual act. It is my firm believe, that this is not what woman, men or children want.

However, since the 50 shades of 'whatever' hit the market, people and particularly women tend to be a bit more curious regarding ‘naughty things’ and I happen to have something they respond to. It might be that they notice, that I do not falter when faced with their fantasies. Nonetheless, as I have no interest following up on hormonal arousal only, I let them know that I noticed and understood the signals and then let it be. I regard acknowledging interest as polite, but not as a reason to act on instincts, because the consent is lacking, obviously.

Most of the times, you just smile, are flattered with a little attention and move on. But sadly, feeling seen through and then put on hold is not bringing out the gratitude in some females; instead of trusting me for knowing – and respecting - the rules, I am either challenged beyond what ever can be regarded as ‘accidental’ or they feel rejected and grow cold as ice.

Of course, I understand how tough it can be, to admit one’s desires - it is not different with my submissives - but at the end, knowledge leads to understanding and acceptance and give you the keys to decide how you wish to live and love.

In fact, it is likely that most individuals have a clear boundary between what happens inside of their head and on the outside. For those that can read between the lines this is not always easy. Yet, my rule of consent is easy to follow, and it is therefore safe.

Of course, it is okay to feel attracted to someone, it is okay to have a hot scene about it in your mind and it is okay if you try it out if it feels as good in reality as it does in your imagination – it likely won’t, at least not at first. Yet, being clear about your wishes, your motives and the consequences of your attitude and actions is paramount when it comes to actions. Knowing the position of the other is equally important.

Whatever we wish to do, we should consider and respect the other persons needs and wishes. To play with being attractive is certainly fun, but if you are not into playing it to the end, better do not play at all and wait until you have build enough trust to take the next step. A step by step approach can be as nice and satisfactory as being overwhelmed by Mr. or Mrs. Right. We are not there to perform, but to enjoy.

Take good care of yourself!

Sir Cameron

PS this is one of the post, when I wonder why I write them at all. But hey, I did it and I hope it will be of help to someone.

- Satan and Sadists is part of the series on sexuality and religion -

In the preface of his book “The Devil”, American historian and religious studies scholar Jeffrey Burton Russell gives us a remarkable quote regarding evil:

“Evil – the infliction of pain upon sentient beings – is one of the most longstanding and serious problems of human existence.”[i]

The personification of this evil is called ‘devil’, also known as the great adversary and obstructer of (the triune) God and the Heavenly Host. So, at face value, Sir Cameron, as a born-again Sadist, is in the finest company of the fallen Angels that descended from above into the earthly mess of abomination – then didn’t those Sons of God in Genesis six not lust after the human females?[ii]

Yet, as Russell does not believe in a historical Satan, we leave this line for now, but it is nevertheless interesting, how he defines evil. Now instead of trying to argue that evil is not limited to the infliction of pain, but a result of the fall by humanity and the world they live in – in which allegedly Satan played a sneaky role too – we simply take the stance that we are not insulted, as inflicting – as we see it - consensual pain is not evil whatsoever.

Nevertheless, the attempt to identify evil with inflicting pain is something that seems to be a natural tendency, as sadists are often confronted with horror, fear and repulsion; hurting someone is plain wrong. The poor ‘victims’ are either abused or sick themselves, preferably due to wrong religious teachings, childhood abuse or bad self-image. Defending your sadist position often leads to aggression or rejection on the other side. Why is this?

Generally speaking, I think it has – beside repressed sexuality – mainly to do with lacking a proper way to deal with evil, pain and death. Then consider; when indeed sadism is evil, then BDSM is all about religion. This is a point I have been defending ever since, as, in accordance with C.G. Jung, Sir Cameron sees human beings as being religious by nature and sexuality as embedded in our moral and religious convictions.[iii]

But let’s return to the controversial issue of evil and BDSM; The sole reason why people – at first sight – often reject BDSM is because they do not understand the motivation, but what they believe they understand is what they see; perverted sex. The notion of perversion is of course related to normality, regardless if you see this in a moral or statistical sense. The sadist perversion is rendered a deviation from the normal regular sexual praxis.

The trained observer will undoubtedly also see the similarity between the way how good and evil is contrasted with the way how a moral judgement regarding perversion and normality is justified. We will not go into the question to what extend normality is normal, or if normality – as such – is even depending on deviation in order to be normal. Nor will we look at justifications for moral judgements with regard to certain sexual praxis; the only issue we will look at for now is that of similarity.

The Devil - at least in the three great mono-theistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam - is not just a personification of evil, it is also the source. In fact, for Christianity and perhaps in a weaker sense for Islam too, the image we have regarding the devil is of great influence on how we see God and his actions regarding mankind. In that sense, Russell is right to mention that the problem of evil is closely related to any view on mankind, this is because evil – as it is – requires an answer, which religions – more or less - try to give.

The idea of blaming the devil in order to make God not responsible for all the wrongdoings of his creatures is of course a well known answer in our Western culture. Yet, there are some minor irregularities connected to it; first of all, in the Tenach - the Jewish ‘old testament’ - Satan is seen as one of the sons of God[iv], a particular group in the Hierarchy of Angels. According to the same traditions angels are creatures themselves, thus leaving us with the task to explain evil while God is good.

Elaine Pagels - another theologian scholar that denies the existence of the devil as a person – even argues that the figure of Satan became a way for orthodox Christians to demonize their religious opponents, namely, other Christian sects and Jews.[v]

Irrespective if Pagels is right or not, the idea of Satan as the opponent of God is for certain a method to set a group apart. Particularly groups that advocate Scriptural infallibility actually need Satan in order to explain their view on the Holy Texts; denying Satan is therefore paramount to rebuking the whole view on e.g. Christian truth as seen by religious conservatives, as you have no scapegoat for evil left, the fall is being questioned, just as the need for the Kingdom to come, the Anti-Christ and so on.

Now - by way of analogy of relations - we can see that the same dynamics as we find between God and the Devil play a role when contrasting kink and vanilla sexuality. Yet, let’s assume - for the sake of argument- that the devil does not exist; we accordingly have to find evil either in ourselves or even in God. Therefore we cannot really use a method of projective identification – blaming the devil – for sexual variance. Nor can we use a negative connection between female sexuality and sin, that some desperately seem to derive from Scriptures at all costs.

Face value rejection of BDSM urges may indicate a denial of sexual reality in favour of a delusional projection of ‘devilish sins’ to warrant for moral condemnation. This is a hard judgement, as I know very well that many conservatives are in fact kind and gentle people. But – as the good observer has noticed – my extensive use of Freudian terminology also makes clear, that words are indeed a two-edged sword[vi]. The same Freudian terminology that was once used to stigmatize ‘perverts’, can equally be used against the very premises that had initiated them in the first place. We have moved on.

‘To love one's neighbour as one's self’[vii] - with or without pain - can only be done with the right mindset; that of genuine appreciation and acceptance of the other, sensitive to the needs of the other and that of yourself, expecting mutual responsibility and a consensual affirmation towards loving.

Allegorically speaking, respect for the Christian heritage of our culture, in which we tried to find and express our views on life gathered in a common religion with texts and historical traditions, does also show that the context of a writing is fundamental for understanding what an author meant. I admit that by presuming that the devil is a construction, I went beyond that what we might think what the authors meant.[viii] In this sense, my use of ‘quotes’ is equally biased as the exegesis of many conservatives.

Yet, neglecting our heritage would be an even less appropriate solution. Interpreting a codex of texts at least attempts to take for serious what our ancestors did believe to be valuable. And so Sir Cameron speaks about what he thinks is valuable; to live out our natural – or who wishes; God given - urges in a way that ‘approaches sexuality in an explorative, adventurous and celebratory manner’.[ix]

Happy Celebrations to all of you!

---

[i] Russell, Jeffrey Burton (1977), The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, (Meridian, New York), page 11.

[ii] For those not introduced into the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words; the Greek again from ‘born-again’ is a translation of anothen – from above – and the Hebrew word for Sons – Bene – who were seen as descendents or offspring of God. Lusting for strange flesh – just as in Sodom! – is seen as wrong; at least when seen from the sex-negative interpretation. It is all very biased and I will spare you – oh that benevolent side of Sir Cameron -  the confusing exegesis regarding the above stated issues.

[iii] So next time you are about to spray all over you slave(s) face(s), think twice before shouting ‘holy shit’

[iv] E.g. in Job 1:6 “And there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before JHWH; and Satan came also among them”.

[v] Pagels, Elaine (1995), The Origin of Satan: How Christians Demonized Jews, Pagans, and Heretics, (Vintage Books)

[vi] The reference is to Hebrews 4:12

[vii] The reference is to Mark 12:33

[viii] Yet, as we have no ‘autographa’, we never can be certain that we know what the authors actually said, let alone what it would have meant for them at their time and for us in our time.

[ix] The phrasing is from D. Easton’s ethical slut interview on youtube.

No theory today; only prosa .....

“This hurts me more than it hurts you.” Sir Cameron said to her while he took out his leather belt. It was a black one; thick and heavy.

Carmen did not belief the bastard for a second. She hated herself for getting so wet, knowing he would soon spot it and loath her. He always did that.

She swallowed her pride, keeping obedient, not giving him a reason to delay what would happen anyway.

Cameron’s hand touched the soft flesh of her behind and teasingly slipped down; tenderly removing the last piece of fabric that protected her from his eyes. It showed him how ready she was.

“You want this, don’t you?” His sexy voice was heavy with suppressed emotions, indicating Carmen, that she at least was not the only one trying to maintain control.

“Yes, Sir” she finally gave in, barely able to speak.

His caress of the soft skin of her inner thigh made her shiver and she almost lost control. Immediately after the sensation passed, he hit her. A hot white flash shot through her body, making clear that she would fall deep today.

»God have mercy on me …«

After three more hard strokes, his strong fingers clamped her adorable dark pink areolas. Carmen moaned instantly and looked at his pants, hungering for his magnificent masculinity.

“Yeah, I thought so” he smiled mockingly “you are looking for the belt, don’t you?”

Carmen bowed her head; there was nothing more to say; she was all his now: bare and exposed.

Sir Cameron drew in her scent of fear and lust and then straightened his back; forcing to keep his composure. »I  may never show how much I love her.«

Carmen knew it anyway.

...

BDSM Vocabulary … are we listening or condemning?

Words are expressive; we use words to describe thoughts and emotions in a way that helps us to communicate that which we wish to say. This functions, because words have meaning[i] by which we can express our ideas and concepts.

The fact, that the word ‘heaven’ has a different meaning as the word ‘heavy’, shows that words are particularly suited to express differences that sets one idea, or concept apart from another. In this sense we say that we define words; they are outlined, limited and restricted to have this and not that meaning. Of course there are exceptions to it - like words that are used metaphorically or that are ambiguous in their meaning – but this does not take away the fact, that in order to clearly understand what we say, we also in the cases of those exceptions, we have to specify our intentions and we make use of additional words to do so.

But the whole concept of words as being meaningful is centred on the idea of rationality. Therefore, love is better expressed in deeds on an emotional level, as it can be done with words. Words seem to be the instrument of our logical faculty, with its basic true and false distinction. Behaving socially e.g. does not exclude the use of speech, but behaviour can also be expressed simply by actions that are not verbal utterances. Such behaviour also follows ‘definitions’ that we call social rules. The fact that we distinguish good and bad social behaviour is inherently related to our logical ability and that again to our ability to speak in a language that is developed in a social process like culture. And also the word emotion is not an emotion itself, but it refers to something that we ‘label’.

The idea that words are limited, context dependent and only in active use, as expressed in sentences, develop their full lingual functionality, should make us aware that words themselves are not our reality and are only means that we use to communicate with one another, or with ourselves.

So what does this mean for BDSM?

First and foremost it means that the limitations of speech itself, also apply to our ability to express our BDSM experience verbally. Saying “This will hurt” can invoke many reactions. It can mean that you will swing that flogger with an extra bit of force right on top of that outstanding butt. Yet, it can also mean that you are about to clean a little bruise with alcohol. Stating things more clearly - like: I will hurt you with this flogger - is not a great help, as we still do not know how much it will hurt, or why we are motivated to hurt someone.

The language we use in BDSM is borrowed from our normal language. We use the word hurting, and naturally by most people this is perceived as something negative, something unpleasant that is to be avoided. But while flogging, we are not hurting because of that, but we are spending sensations on someone’s skin, these sensations invoke emotions and bodily reactions in that other person, which in return leads to another perception of the pain. It is a psychological thing and something that – as an interpretational context in which the activity makes sense – cannot be expressed in those few words: I will hurt you.

So many of the things we do and wish for, can be explained in words, but for those not understanding the mechanisms behind it, the motivations, the rewards, the pleasure, the words do not make sense in the way it does to us.

Explaining things like motivations, feelings of pleasure or sexual impulses in rational concepts that are clear and obvious to others is very complicated. It is not only specifically hard in the case of BDSM, it is the same with normal sexuality, complex feelings and religious or mystical experiences or simple things like the beauty of a sunset or a particularly artistic painting; what it does to us can be expressed in words, but it is not the full experience, not the complete picture and in some ways even confusing in itself.

This also means, if someone else has a different understanding or a situation, or even seems unexpectedly close, it does not necessarily confirm that you have indeed understood each other. Normally you will, as our words are not that vague, but assuming that you speak plain language can be misleading. Particularly in a scene where so many differences in sexual kink are gathered under an umbrella abbreviation like BDSM, this should prompt us to cautiousness and consideration; are we listening or are we condemning …?

Sir Cameron

---

[i] How words have or carry meaning is not an issue here; whether words refer, are signs, or if we attribute meaning to words; for who is interested, please get yourself some books on the philosophy of language. Good sources are Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, John Searle, Paul Ricoeur, Jaques Derida, Willaim Alston and of course, Wikipedia.

Topping from the bottom - Myth debunkers refuted

Recently I was searching for BDSM play that focus around Divinity and I accidentally stumbled over a nice blog called Diva Toolbox’s. The article in question is called‘ 6 Myths about BDSM Inspired by "50 Shades of Grey”’ and blogged by Ande Lyons from the website: ‘www.bringbackdesire.com’.

Particularly the 2^nd ‘Myth’ that the ‘dominant is in control’, made me perform the well known Mr. Spock eyebrow movement; ‘Fascinating’. Why does she think so?

Please understand, that I have no problem with Lyons expressing her opinion, I just do not recognize myself in it. For the sake of comfort, I simply take a chunk out of her explanation, so we do not have to switch between browsers tabs:

“A dominant’s job is to fulfill the submissive’s needs — that’s what brings the dominant pleasure. “Every good dominant knows that the submissive is really the partner in control,” says Jennifer Hunter. “All a submissive woman has to do is relax and enjoy the ride while delicious sexual acts are visited upon her. She’s the star of the proceedings. Someone is ministering to her needs for a change. Master is choreographing all the action.”

A good starting point would be to acknowledge that the Dominant indeed takes pleasure out of the interaction with the bottom and that he Dominant as Master indeed is choreographing the action.

The rest of the remarks are a bit harder to swallow. Concluding that a Dominant would  only be ‘good’, when they know that the bottom is really the one in control, is a bit far stretched in my opinion. Just as seeing the woman as the submissive of a Dominant male is a classic view for sure, but not the only option. Yet, for the sake of argument, we assume that the quote – as it is – does aim at the ‘classical’ D/s relationship, where the male is Dominant and the female submissive.

Now, let’s go back to the idea that it really is the submissive woman that is in charge. Is this so? It is certainly is a valid point of view and that this idea may appeal to many women is understandable, as it gives you a very controlled way of being served in a naughty fashion. It seems an exemplary instance of the strong woman that is sexually demanding and being in charge over her own experience.

However fascinating such a scene might be; it is only a view in which the Lady seeks someone to do a job for her (which is not really a mind-set of servitude). The Dominant is ‘ministering her needs’ and ‘choreographing the action’. And according to his job description – one is tempted to add. Nevertheless, there is nothing to be said about choosing this way of actions and it can be regarded as a form of power exchange too, when this is how the scene is agreed upon. But, to me - and without doubt to many others too - it more looks like topping from the bottom, which – as the Sadist bastard honestly admits - is not one of Sir Cameron’s personal favourites.

Perhaps I may suggest a lexical distinction with regard to the use of the words ‘control’ and ‘power’. If we say, that the Dominant is in control, what do we precisely mean by that? Does it mean, he controls the bottom and she is helpless, or do we mean that he controls the power that was given to or shared with him, or perhaps simply even taken by him?

It is not, that I do not recognize the truth in Jennifer Hunter’s words – that Lyons is quoting, unfortunately without reference – but I do not see how it would debunk a myth. It is simply describing one way of playing a scene, not the only way it can be played, nor the only sane one. There are certainly forms of control that do not fit into the description we read above.

If you e.g. take sadism in account, the whole picture easily changes. The delicious sexual acts – that are so naughty - may just not be present at all. The whole scene may last for hours and not involve sex, but only show how the slave is being subjugated to the sole pleasure of the Master.

The bottom is still the partner, with (respected) soft and hard limits and with the possibility to use a safeword to hold or even stop the scene, but to describe that as being in control is a bit overdone.

Maybe, a too theoretical approach of BDSM as an “exchange of power between a Dominant and a submissive” – mentioned in Myth 6: BDSM is primarily about pain FICTION! – is misleading. Some masochists that I know, do bottom to get their thing, but they are not submissive at all. Some Dominants need pain, in order to get in the right mindset to play effectively.

As true as it normally is - that the needs of the bottom play a huge role in guiding the scene - the real challenge that lies behind it, is the trust in the Master; in his integrity as a sound person, in his abilities, in his care and in his viciousness that is mean enough to play out your fantasy.

In my experience, giving trust is quite something else as giving yourself over to lust.

And if your little bottom is having a good time and you push it deeper and deeper and lead it closer to its limits; you also know from experience, that the whole idea that the bottom is actually in charge is a farce; it cannot think clear anymore, its sense of self is floating, its butt is hungering for another stroke of that massive bruising cane – and than the MASTER stops; as it is he that is in control, and that is his job, particularly when the bottom no longer has any control left, not over the body, not over its will, not over its health, yes, it not even has the power left to safeword out.

This may – and must not – be the way that BDSM is experienced by many of the kinky folk, but it is part of it. For me it is, and therefore the statement “Myth 2: the Dominant is in Control. FICTION!” is not debunking a Myth, it is not even debunking a reality, it is merely advocating one way of experience over another because it better suits with the ideas of Lyons and Hunter on how BDSM might be. They are entitled to that, but I doubt how many of the Masters and Mistresses that I know would agree with them. However, the advice of committing to a safe, sane and sound BDSM praxis I do heartily share.

Concluding I wish to stress the point, that experience precedes theory. Whether the experience is morally justified or not, is quite another question. Challenging experience by calling it a Myth is a theoretical stance one can take, but perhaps, we can easily find a more common line; let’s just say, that the Control of the Dominant over the submissive is itself not a myth, but of a mythological character. A distinction that in my opinion, better suits BDSM fantasy play.