I think this is why I often like slash D/s stories about two men, which are often written by straight women. Both men are strong and sexy…one of them gives up power to the other during a scene or for large parts of the time. Now THAT’s exciting.

Kurt Vonnegut wrote “We are who we pretend to be, so we must be careful who we pretend to be.” It would be easy, therefore, to argue that if somebody feels more/less submissive after/before an orgasm, then they *must* be more/less submissive. But are we defined by our feelings? I don’t know – our feelings are ephemeral and easily altered by chemistry (alcohol, chocolate, bacon, endorphins, hormones, etc. ).

But are we defined by our actions? Well, if a few hours after Thumper (for example) releases or orgasms he’s not quite as physically attentive, does that make him less submissive? Well, perhaps… for a few hours or days.

Know what? The more I think about this, the less I even enjoy using the terms sub or dom. What the hell do they even mean? Unless you’re using them in a *very* specifically defined context, they’re essentially worthless to describe what’s actually going on.

Mrs. Edge doesn’t even like the idea of being “dominant” because it conjures up visions of cruel, humiliating, leather-clad, whip-wielding vixens (yum!). And if you suggested that I was submissive, she’d laugh, because, again, it brings up an image of a trussed man, pathetically groveling “worthless worm”. Yet, she enjoys locking me up, enjoys denying me for long periods of time, enjoys the attention when I’m feeling randy, and enjoys the control over deciding when, where, and how often. And we both enjoy that, even after I’ve orgasmed. Her enjoying the control does not make her feel like a dominatrix, she simply just enjoys the control. And I’ve decided that my enjoying her control does not make me submissive, it just means that I enjoy her control.

Again, we really need a different syntax for this because the words tat we use really don’t describe what seems to be happening.

Sorry Maymay, I reject your whole argument.

That’s fine with me, Billus, although I’m pretty unconvinced you’ve actually read much of this post, especially since you ask “are we fooling ourselves when we…maintain equality outside of the bedroom” as though you expect me to disagree with you. ;)

I do wonder, however, what you actually disagree with, since you do seem rather pissed off at me. Nevertheless, you also seem to be making all my points for me without realizing it, with the one exception being that I believe the way submission is discussed by many bloggers, especially men, does very little to empower other people, particularly men, to navigate their own sexuality, a point which you seem to have missed or maybe just haven’t gotten around to yet. :)

You say,

[Food preferences, fashion taste, and sex] are totally individual choices, right or wrong.

That’s a lovely sentiment, and I completely agree that those things, particularly sex, should always be actively chosen by the individual in order to enable that person to feel fully self-expressed, to shamelessly enjoy the experience, and so on.

But do you actually believe that any of those choices are totally individual, always absolutely uninformed by one’s environment, social circle, past experience, or cultural pressures? Really? Overwhelming anecdotal evidence has shown me otherwise.

So, I wonder, would you rather see the way we talk about sex and submission remain with the status quo as it is now, with your “illusions” fed by stereotypes the majority resource for submissively-inclined individuals? If so, why? What value does that provide to you?

This huge rambling post tries to stress that everybody has their own internal ideas about sexuality, with submission being the main focus of this particular discussion. It goes on at great length about what submission really means, with emphasis on overturning stereotypes, etc., and yet adds the typical caviats about “for me” and “your mileage may vary”. Then at the very end, we read:

[i]stop insisting that keeping a man from his orgasms somehow turns him more submissive. You’re just fooling yourselves[/i]

It sure sounds to me like a warning not to deviate from “the one true way” we were just told not to follow. Are we fooling ourselves when we refuse to head out into the garage to snip off a CB-XXXX with the first handy tool that comes to hand? Are we fooling ourselves when we participate in submission in the bedroom, yet maintain (or even demand) a more level equality outside of it? I greatly resent someone counting angels on their own pin and pronouncing judgments so sweeping on other people because they are now the self-appointed (or is it ‘anointed’) arbitrator of what is, and what should be?

Sorry Maymay, I reject your whole argument. If some people believe being denied makes them more submissive, who are you to rain on their parade? Tom made the point a few posts ago on his site that “it’s a game”. It’s a game where nobody, not me, not Tom, and certainly not you, can make rules for other people. I will go as far as agreeing that many people may be confused by what the rules are (which was I think the origin of Thumper’s post about the subject that started all this), but that is an unfortunate side effect when the only rule is, “You make up your own rules”.

Sexuality is one of the great human activities that cannot be defined in a generic way, unless it impinges upon criminal or public anti-social behavour. It shares this trait with the other huge areas of personal choice – food preferences and fashion taste. These are totally individual choices, right or wrong. Any illusions are mine to believe, not yours to belittle.

I think that part of the problem in discussing submission is that there really isn’t a syntax, a language that makes it clear for the reader or listener.

Right, Tom. So, uh, let’s fix that. Without it, we can’t answer your question: are we all event talking about the same thing?, not to mention all the intra-personal and intra-relationship problems that arise from this missing component of understanding. That’s why I say that semantics are not trivial.

I’ve often said that the chastity subculture has not developed the syntax to make clear what we mean when we say things like “I went two months without a release.” Does that mean no orgasm? No milking? No ejaculation? No fluid dripping? Not removing the device? What?

Similarly, I think that part of the problem in discussing submission is that there really isn’t a syntax, a language that makes it clear for the reader or listener. And part of that is because the concept, I think, involves such a large emotional component relative to, say, bottoming. You can be a pain slut but not necessarily feel submissive. Likewise, you can be a denial junkie without specifically feeling submissive to whoever it is with whom you are playing.

Personally, I have long since given up trying to explain how I feel because I can’t express adequately what I want to get — or enjoy getting — from being denied. Mrs. Edge (who is free from the issues of self-contemplation) simply explains that she kinks on holding the power that I have given her. Does that make me submissive? I’m not sure. In essence, I allow her to take this power (it was mine to hand over, naturally). I feel good when she exercises that control. In part, it’s because I valued that power within myself, and I appreciate that she values it as well. But having reached that conclusion, I see that it simply doesn’t jive with what I see many/most submissives describing about themselves.

So, again: are we all even talking about the same thing?