Equality

 

Our community is growing by leaps and bounds.  That's obvious to anyone who organizes anything and to anyone who attends related events.  We are gaining people every day and most of them are novices to this lifestyle.  They usually come to us through the Internet, which can be both good and bad.  It's good because so much good information is so easily available.  It's bad because so much incorrect or misleading information is equally easily available.  It's good because it can offer a safe place to explore fantasies and learn to understand one's own reactions and the reactions of others.  It's bad because sometimes people believe those fantasies are reality and also because an experienced online slave or Master who has no real time experience is still a complete novice, and that's not something that those novices always realize or make clear.

In an effort to welcome those who are new we as a community have made a number of concessions. One of the things I see happening is a certain backlash as a result of those concessions, particularly from those who truly are experienced, with years in the lifestyle.  A great deal of the established community has been very accepting of others, very willing to say "Our way isn't the only way."  I think some of that is borne from the belief that we of all people shouldn't look down on anyone else's kink.  Unfortunately, I believe that we have sacrificed a great deal of communication due to those concessions. We do not have defined terms that we all agree on.  We have allowed more and more for novices and people with little or no real experience to alter definitions because the established definition is not how THEY see it.

There's nothing wrong with uniqueness in a relationship.  There's nothing wrong with arriving at one's own conclusions, based on one's own experience and abilities.  There's nothing wrong with accepting some things and rejecting others based on what works and doesn't work for you.  But if we do not agree on the basic terminology, we cannot communicate.  We do a disservice to those very novices and ourselves when we allow accepted definitions to be shifted to a point that they include every single person's viewpoint.

To put it another way, a waltz is a dance with a specific pattern of steps done to music with a specific kind of timing.  There may be nothing wrong with adding a bit of flair or adjusting the speed of the steps, but if you're using tango steps and tango music, you're not dancing a waltz anymore.  Calling it a waltz is both inaccurate and sure to be confusing.  It's not to imply that a waltz is better than a tango simply that they are intrinsically different.

Having said that, I'll say that no, I don't think the partners involved in a D/s relationship are equal.  If one person's choices and preferences rule over another's, those persons are not by definition equal.  I don't think that submissives have less value, nor do I treat submissives in a less respectful manner, particularly those who are not submissive towards me.  People as a whole should be treated equally.  I do not believe, however, that they are equals within a D/s relationship.

Equality has a specific and clear definition which, in order to communicate, has been agreed to over the last few hundred years.  The definition taken directly from www.dictionary.com, is this:  "The condition or quality of being equal; agreement in quantity or degree as compared; likeness in bulk, value, rank, properties, etc.; as, the equality of two bodies in length or thickness; an equality of rights."

If I am absolutely equal to my submissive that defeats the purpose of being submissive and dominant.  We go from being a benevolent dictatorship back to being a democracy.  I don't choose to live in a democratic relationship.  I am courteous and respectful towards those who are submissive to me because I choose to behave that way for my own reasons.  I might not have the same relationships I have now if I were not, but I do not believe that I would be wrong in behaving that way so long as the submissives and I had agreed upon that situation.

I believe two people are equal outside the relationship, and within the relationship up to the point that they choose to pursue a power-exchange dynamic.  I do not believe when looking at a couple that the submissive is less valuable, less intelligent, less capable, or less in any way than the dominant.  I believe the submissive chooses to subjugate his or her will to that of the dominant's within the relationship.  That choice has little effect on me unless I am within that relationship as well.  I would not and do not weigh a dominant's opinion more heavily than a submissive's based on those roles, I do not take a dominant's word simply because they are dominant any more than I take a submissive's word simply because they are submissive.  My relationship to them, however, is not a D/s relationship.  I deal with them as friends or acquaintances, or, more generally, as people.

Within a relationship, both the dominant and the submissive have the power to end the relationship.  In that way, they are certainly equals.  I may say, "I release you," the submissive may say, "I request release."  Either ends the relationship.  

We work so hard to apply democratic principals to places where they have no reason to be applied, and in so doing we negate the very things we say we want to have in our lives.  If everyone is absolutely equal, who makes the decisions?  Who chooses how to proceed, and who carries out those decisions?   Not every relationship has to have that quality, certainly, and you may choose for your relationship not to have them.  The definition of such a relationship is easy.  It's called a vanilla relationship.  There’s nothing at all wrong with it, but again, calling a tango a waltz doesn’t make it one, it just confuses everyone on the dance floor.

A military setting does not consider a private and a general to be equal.  They have clearly defined and agreed upon roles within that delineation of rank.  If you declare that you have formed your own sort of military but add that you have abandoned the concept of rank and authority and are now conducting your military in a communal fashion, with jointly-made decisions and tea parties on Friday, I don't think you should expect that others recognize you as a military.  By doing that, you have abandoned the very principles and hierarchy that define the organization itself.

One truth to the military example is that every general was once a private, every general once had to take orders before he could give them and theoretically, he rose to the rank of general because of his abilities and inclination to lead.  I know that is, in fact, a fallacy in the real military.  The theory is a good one, however.  Not everyone comes to a position of dominance through submission.  Not everyone has had the opportunity or training that the old guard leather community used, wherein calling oneself a Master meant that you had spent your time on the bottom, had worked your way up from private to general in a sense.  It's easy enough in our communities to put a "Master" in front of your name, or change your scene name to include the word "Mistress," and declare yourself as dominant.

It's also true that with so many people coming in so quickly, having any level of real life experience puts you in a more advanced position in terms of experience.  Experience is important and we should, I think, learn from every experience regardless of how much or how little exposure we have.  But those who have now been involved in the lifestyle for two whole years now see themselves as experienced and deserving of the title and the respect that they often mistakenly believe should also be due them because of that self-anointed title.  I have spent many years in this community and in this dynamic, and yet I believe that I still have more to learn and that there are many others out there to whom I would defer because I consider them senior to me.

If, as a submissive, you believe yourself to be the equal within your relationship to your Master or Mistress, then why are you on your knees in front of them?  I have said that I don't believe you should ever give yourself to someone you do not believe is at least as strong and at least as smart as you are.  If you do, I believe you belittle the gift you offer.

You should want to kneel because you believe this person in front of you is more than you are, is an amazing being who inspires a certain amount of awe in you, who is, in fact, capable of doing things that you are not able or willing to do.  As a dominant, I may think the same thing, that this is an incredible person who can give this to me, who can kneel in front of me and trust me with their lives, but that isn't the same thing as believing the two of you are equal within a D/s relationship.  It is recognizing the very unique qualities of the other person with whom you have a power-exchange relationship.

Do I expect those who are submissive to me to be submissive to anyone else?  No, I do not.  I don't expect anyone else's submissive to be submissive to me, either.  I expect my drink to be fetched by my submissive, but I do not expect my submissive to automatically fetch drinks for everyone else, either, unless they are functioning as a host or hostess.  I don't expect them to bite their tongue rather than express an opinion, or be unable or afraid to think for themselves.  What I expect is for them to accept my will over theirs within the relationship we have, which we have agreed to pursue.   Beyond that, I expect them to be courteous and respectful to others, precisely as I expect others to be towards them.

Outside the relationship, yes, we should be treated equally.  If we are equal within the relationship, however, then the reason for the relationship to exist escapes me, or, more precisely, I do not believe that the relationship of dominant and submissive does exist.  As I said before, that relationship doesn't have to exist.  If a different kind of relationship works for you, that's fine and dandy.  If the waltz doesn't suit your taste or temperament, by all means switch to a tango but accept that you are not dancing the same dance as the others on the floor and recognize that the music the waltz orchestra is playing is not well-suited to your steps.

I believe the dance floor is big enough for all of us.  I believe we have a right to choose the partners and the steps that best suit our lives and our tastes.  However, I believe if we try and mold our definitions so they include everyone, if we insist that the tango is just the same as the waltz despite evidence to the contrary, in the end we all find ourselves stumbling rather than dancing.  Besides that, I'm truly awful at letting someone else lead - just ask that handsome gentleman I dance with.  It seems I have a genuinely difficult time following.  Who would have guessed?