Read on Twitter
Continuing the conversation from yesterday:
It's often pushed that dominants are aggressors and thus submissives must be protected at all times.
While there is truth that the lifestyle has aggressors and victims, the generalization skews our focus in keeping people safe.
It's often pushed that dominants are aggressors and thus submissives must be protected at all times.
While there is truth that the lifestyle has aggressors and victims, the generalization skews our focus in keeping people safe.
First we need to remember that not all dominants are sadists, nor are they all tops. You can be dominant in your relationship without ever lifting an implement or using it on another person.
Force doesn't determine your dominance. Enjoying pain doesn't negate it.
Force doesn't determine your dominance. Enjoying pain doesn't negate it.
Related, not all submissives are masochists and/or bottoms. Your submission isn't equivalent to how much pain you can endure.
Being submissive isn't negated by wielding the flogger yourself, or by being outspoken and saying what you want.
"Topping from the bottom" is bullshit.
Being submissive isn't negated by wielding the flogger yourself, or by being outspoken and saying what you want.
"Topping from the bottom" is bullshit.
For all those who are getting riled up about that last bit: "Topping from the bottom" was a phrase created by people who thought their bottoms were being too pushy in scene by asking for what they want.
If you can't handle your bottom saying "more" or "no more" don't play.
If you can't handle your bottom saying "more" or "no more" don't play.
Back to the idea of protection. This is another thing that at the rise of "public dungeons" has been used by "true doms" as a way to scoop up the new attractive submissives that walk through the door.
In valid protection situations it's used to help guide a submissive and steer away from people who would do harm.
Often it instead becomes a way of "protecting" the cute newbie and grooming them to be a new partner. Mentorship across the slash has similar problems.
Often it instead becomes a way of "protecting" the cute newbie and grooming them to be a new partner. Mentorship across the slash has similar problems.
While it's true that these "feeding frenzies" to snatch up new submissives happen, it doesn't mean that submissives are any less in control of who they match with and we shouldn't be infantilizing their ability to choose.
For top identifying dominants the frenzy tends to happen once they've shown that they have proficiency at a play type. Having proficiency doesn't mean having experience though which puts those dominants in the same position as the brand new submissive as prey to predators.
Predators aren't just on the left side of the slash with prey on the right (dom/sub, top/bottom, etc).
This is why saying submissives have all the power is a problem. It negates that there are two (or more) people involved in the relationship that have to consent.
This is why saying submissives have all the power is a problem. It negates that there are two (or more) people involved in the relationship that have to consent.
To an extent it also equates tops (dominants) to being vending machines that once you start them they have no choice but to keep going until you (the bottom or sub) tell them to stop. Sounds a bit like rape don't you think?
Consent is two sided. Not one.
Consent is two sided. Not one.
