Why are kinky people kinky? If you’re kinky, can you tell me why you are that way? Ask a kinky person this and I bet the most likely answer you’re going to get is “I don’t know; I just am.” Interestingly, ask a gay person why they’re gay, and you’ll get the same answer. Conclusion? It’s not rocket science. Kinky is an orientation, too.
But let’s delve a little deeper, noting for the moment that we will try to avoid the natural chicken-and-egg debate that always erupts from such digging.
We know there are lots of kinds of kinky, but they don’t. I know that a sexual orientation has lots of facets, different pieces that together form the make up of someone’s sexuality, the combined physical, psychological, social, emotional, and spiritual makeup of an individual. But again, they don’t.
Sexual orientation itself is a word most often thought of as a definition for someone’s desire for a particular sex, as in a physical anatomical construct, even though the word sexual, as implied earlier is often understood as a combination of so many more things than simply physical sex.
So, today, I propose that submissive is an orientation—a facet of desired sexual expression—of psychological power, just as straight is an orientation of sex.
It’s not a radical thought. It’s been talked about before. It’s very straightforward, and I’m sure even without a thorough explanation of what I mean most of you already know what I’m talking about. You know what I’m talking about, I’m willing to bet, because you feel it, too. Some of you are dominant—a valid orientation, as top reciprocates bottom, as gay reciprocates gay, and straight reciprocates straight—and some of you are switches.
Yet, somehow, I think the reciprocal ideas and validity that a sexual orientation that defines a desire for a particular sex and/or gender has done for ideas like “gay,” and “straight,” have not done the same thing for “submissive” or “dominant” because these “power orientations” (for want of a better phrase) haven’t been recognized as valid pieces of sexual componentry, only of sexual expression. In other words, being submissive is recognized as a valid expression of sexual desire (and even that’s pushing it, I know), but it’s still not recognized as a valid component of one’s sexual psyche.
This is wrong.
Being submissive is who I am sexually. I can not imagine being any other way. Furthermore, I have always been submissive sexually. The very first sexualized memory I have is one of a fantasy that involves orgasm control, and ever since then and probably from well before, control and power have been inexorably linked to my expressions of sexual fulfillment. In other words, for me sexual arousal is tied to feeling submissive; I rarely, if ever, feel turned on unless I also feel submissive (in one of myriad ways).
On this very blog, before I could articulate such concepts (which, somewhat amazingly, was only last year), I see vestiges of my submissive self thinking about this very thing, wondering “Is there such a thing as regular sex?” Regular sex, I defined at the time, was sex without a dominant or submissive power dynamic, sex devoid of the expressions of power imbalance that, to me (I am learning), are intrinsic to the very core of my sex drive. Without this power imbalance, and specifically without the power imbalance shifted so that I am a submissive participant, the sex is not sexy for me.
This makes sense. There are, obviously, no surprises here, and I came to the same conclusion in March of 2007 as I did today. It makes sense that I would get off being the submissive partner because I’m obviously submissive, doesn’t it? What’s the big revelation?
The revelation comes from the observation that this fact, this obvious and self-evident expression of who I am and how I want to fuck is not given a status anywhere near that even of the still-oppressed gay and lesbian identities are given. Homosexuality is regarded by mostly everyone, including its vocal opponents, as a part of who someone is. It’s recognized and understood to be intrinsic to a person’s sexual understanding. Can the same be said for those of us who seek submission and/or dominance?
Are you sure? I’ve heard people ask, “Is kinky the new gay?” Maybe this is why they’re asking.
In this day and age when same-sex civil union is a hot-button issue, and we as a species are still seemingly so far away from any kind of reconciliation with one another’s basic anatomical differences (including skin color, for pete’s sake!), any attempts to challenge this perceived as threatening to our insular social order are literally eviscerated from the community as though they were cancers. This is somewhat more understandable when you change your perspective and notice the similarities between that behavior and the behavior of our own cells that attack tumors in exactly the same way. But at least we, as a species, are getting better.
As Robert Wright reminds us, cooperation eventually trumps competition. At one point in history each Greek city-state thought villagers from other Greek-city states were subhuman, but eventually all Greeks agreed that all other Greeks were human—it was just the Persians that were subhuman. With our networked world today, by and large, we no longer see geographical boundaries as the ones that divide us and instead of where we live we’ve come to focus on how we live.
The fact of the matter is that I don’t want to live like certain other men. More topically, I don’t want to have sex like them. I’m often asked why I feel that way, which is a bewildering question to me. “Why don’t I want to have sex like that?” I repeat, dumbfounded, nine times out of ten. “Because it’s not sexy for me!”
“Why not?” the issue is pressed.
“Well, why do you think that’s sexy for you?” I insist.
“I don’t know. I just do.”
“Exactly.” Because submissive is an orientation.
This blog is my job. If it moves you, please help me keep doing this Work by sharing some of your food, shelter, or money. Thank you!
by Estra*
07 Jan 2008 at 18:34
I’m personally pretty ‘eh’ about sexual orientations in general, but I definitely think that if there’s such a thing as a “straight” or “gay” as a sexual orientation, there’s definitely such a thing as a “dominant” vs. “submissive” sexual orientation (which would, like gay vs. straight, be some sort of spectrum). Really, I think that if gay and straight get to be orientations, then any category of practices or preferences that has a significant impact on what you do and who you do it with gets to be an orientation, too. There’s so much more that goes into relationships and sex than what’s in someone’s pants, so I’m pretty grumpy about the gay/straight/etc system in general. But that’s a whole other topic altogether.
In any case, I liked this post! <3
by axe
07 Jan 2008 at 18:49
Here here!
I really can’t add anything to this since you’ve said it so well and I’m still thrilled from reading it. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve talked to my ‘nilla friends about it and have been met with “why don’t you just date a vanilla woman and if she loves you, she’ll dominate you”.
Would that make the ‘nilla girl my “beard”?
I’ve tried countless times to have vanilla relationships because it’s a hell of a lot easier to find a vanilla woman. If I could change myself I would, but I can’t. It’s just who I am.
Ok I’m just repeating you now….but still….you’re right.
by Sophiste
07 Jan 2008 at 19:19
I think that, as usual, you’ve made a lot of sense. It would be awfully redundant for me to enumerate the ways in which you’ve made sense.
I wonder if it would be more persuasive and fruitful to talk about submissive as an intimate orientation, or a relational orientation, or a social orientation. I certainly think that’s a big piece of why homosexuality is recognized as a valid identity–because it extends outside the bedroom. The fact that you’re a boy and your mortgage is shared with a boy, a boy is your ‘guest’ for your cousin’s wedding and your company party, your co-parent is a boy–that all seems to carry more weight than you prefer to fuck boys, because by and large our sex lives are private. Additionally, people are, in my view, quite accustomed to the idea that some people behave more submissively and deferentially than others–it’s not like submissive has stopped being a well-used adjective–so it seems like there’s fertile ground to elevate it from a quality to an identity.
by MsS&S
07 Jan 2008 at 19:34
Yesterday a long time friend asked why I couldn’t just date a “nice boy.” “Couldn’t you just date someone and not spank them or do whatever else it is you do to them and still be happy? Do you really need it?”
I said no and then asked him if he thought I should settle and date men without dominating them. He immediately said no…that theoretically if you weren’t going to have what you wanted, you might as well be single anyway. So even though he pretends to be horrified, he would never deny the need to satisfy the urge.
And yes, my earliest memories of boys involve some pretty strong feelings of ownership toward them; joyfully pursuing them and making them do as I wished…
by alterisego
07 Jan 2008 at 20:17
Thanks for writing this post. It is very, very right.
by Chris
07 Jan 2008 at 20:27
This post led to a few thoughts, many of which probably are not surprising…
First, I would argue that our society as a whole already is perfectly capable of, and does, view dominance and submission as an inherent trait of sexuality. It just conflates them with different terms, specifically masculinity and femininity. The “regular” sex that your referred to is not usually (at least in a heterosexual context) free of power dynamics, but is rather prescribed by gender. Are these cultural norms correct? I doubt it… but if you take cultural construction seriously one would expect that many women would take submission as a core element of their sexuality while many men would integrate dominance. Illustrations of this are that rape fantasies are among the most frequent fantasies for women (actually, I think I recall that they are the most common), and that men in the scene often take on “sissy” garb and traits to express submission. That being said, I certainly don’t think that dominance and submission have to be linked to gender… nor do most feminists. As you have previously stated, I think that it is pretty clear that many of your difficulties gaining appreciation and respect are due to the fact that you express the exact opposite of the typical gender-D/s linkage. But, if you want to get hints at how this identity might be treated, looking at cultural expectations of and respect for women might be a start.
I’m also a bit curious about your approval of the cultural acceptance of gay sexual identities as being inherent, and seeking that for submissives. The concern with this type of acceptance is that it tends to marginalize non-conformers. In that case, bisexuals. In the case of BDSM scene, I find that switches tend to bear the brunt. While it certainly doesn’t leave me feeling particularly oppressed, I am certainly annoyed by the constant question of “so are you dominant or submissive?” Generally, I feel like it is much more freeing to push for an understanding of orientations that accepts fluidity and choice, while still respecting those who might be at the extreme poles of the continuum.
Finally, I was originally going to chide you a bit about your comparison of the oppression of kinky people with that of same-sex sexual expression and relationships. What I was going to remark on was what I perceive as a dramatic difference in the imbalance of power and threat of violence that is associated with being queer and being kinky. While I am inclined to maintain this position, it did occur to me that I might not be entirely right on this. For example, what would be the social and economic repercussions for a couple where the submissive partner was always on a leash in public? I dunno… but would imagine that they would be rather severe.
Anyway, thanks for your post… it was quite interesting!
by maymay
07 Jan 2008 at 20:58
Thanks, Estra, Axe, alterisego, and MsS&S. Hearing agreement always feels good. (And here’s to first-time commenters, too!)
Sophiste,
That they are, but as obviously indignant I am of people not accepting my submissiveness as a “valid” part of my sexuality, I’m wary of claiming “submissive” as an identity if only because it is so easily confused with weakness, indecisiveness, and so many more undesirable traits I don’t think are intrinsic to the quality of sexual submission. This comes back to the issue of being unable to see distinctions between one thing and another for some reason, be it ignorance, stubborn unwillingness, or some other obstacle that so many people seem to be doing all the time.
Thanks for your comment though. :) I agree wholeheartedly with your observations about how people and society at large tend to make valid sexualities that they perceive as extending beyond the bedroom. What’s sad about that is the blindness that some sexualities don’t extend outside of the bedroom, when we know for a fact that is a falsehood.
by maymay
07 Jan 2008 at 21:18
Chris,
Yes! Big, fat, heartfelt, yes! Your point here is well-taken, and entirely right. So right, in fact, I almost feel bad for not having made that point in my post originally.
I agree with you here as well, of course, because you’re spot-on again (as usual). My associations with gay sexuality had more to do with the prevalent cultural understanding of such sexuality as okay and not with the fact that gay sexuality is often also seen as exclusionary (i.e., men who do not like women, only other men). Frankly, when it comes to male, or perhaps a better word would be masculine, submission, we have so much farther to go to gain social acceptance than gay or lesbian sexualities do (not that gay or lesbian sexuality is generally allowed yet, of course) that it seemed a “good enough for now” sort of analogy.
For what it’s worth, I’m harping on the “fluid is awesome, binary is harmful!” bandwagon thanks to identifying as a bisexual, as you know, but I felt that making both that point and the one I made in this one entry was simply too much.
This is a pretty interesting point, too, and I think that it remains unknown precisely because many of the earmarks of kinky sexuality are by their nature much more easily hidden than those of “traditionally queer” sexuality. However, let me remind you that the current state of the law (as one example) is much, much more harshly punitive against BDSMers than it is against the LGBT community at large. I often hide my marks after playing because they are “not okay” to leave exposed. There are a whole range of persecutions kinky people face, and some of them I’m sure are violence (I haven’t heard of one personally, but I’m absolutely sure someone out there has a story of a sort like “you’re a submissive, you won’t mind getting gang-raped then!”).
Sometimes invisibility can be a useful defense.
In any event, thanks for your comment. I loved it!
by Wendy
08 Jan 2008 at 01:11
You articulated quite a bit of what I’ve been thinking lately. My best friend, who lives in Utah, and I have hour long conversations on the weekend. She, as a mono, mostly vanilla straight girl, is really interested in *why* I like what I do. Not the liking girls part, or the buttsex. The hitting people/being hit/ouchie things that she wonders about. I’ll have to forward this to her, because you explain this much better than I do.
And now that I think about it, I don’t think I’ve had much ‘vanilla’ sex. There has always been some D/S dynamic, or some sort of kink That came to mind Sunday morning, actually, when talking to my roomie about overhearing me and my date. I thought we were having vanilla sex, but she very pointed out that I was kind of topping him.
On an interesting flip side – I had ‘that kinky talk’ with my father, and the fact that I like that sort of stuff went over better than the fact that I also like girls. Go figure.
by Mirehn
08 Jan 2008 at 01:35
The problem with classing the submissive/dominant spectrum as an orientation, and gaining mass acceptance of the concept, is that the majority of people do not feel they ARE on that spectrum. The people you seek to measure are already separated into one of two groups: “D/s” or “BDSM”. Although people outside these groups may have a subtle orientation, it is not the bisexual of this spectrum, a switch is very different from someone from the vanilla world. In fact even by that word “vanilla” we accept there are people (in fact the majority of people), who are not interested in ANY part of this spectrum. So while the concept is useful for within already “kinky” communities, it is unlikely to gain widespread approval, because so many are in equivalent of asexual and hence not a part of the spectrum.
by maymay
08 Jan 2008 at 01:46
Mirehn, I don’t really have any delusion that makes me believe classifying “submissive” as a sexual orientation will actually make much headway. I do, however, find the assertion a valuable tool to illustrate a point. That point is that sexuality is an N-faceted thing.
I also think that asexual people might take strong issue with their sexuality being thought of as “not on the spectrum of sexuality” as they like to define such a spectrum as a triangle (and unfortunately I seem to have lost the link to that reference, grr on me!), but I’ll not put words in their mouths. The “vanilla versus kinky” sexual orientation debate is precisely the same debate, as you correctly allude to, that asexual people are fighting right now, only with different terms. Just like us, asexuality isn’t a sexual orientation that has mass acceptance either.
Of course, that’s yet one more reason I find their information and the reaction to them so fascinating; there’s so much to be learned directly from them.
by Boston Boy
08 Jan 2008 at 10:19
I’ve been thinking on this, and false started a few responses. I think language is getting in the way, and people may be tripped up by what “an orientation” means. I think some of the problems might fall away if you consider the sum of any one person’s hardwired predilections and kinks to be his orientation, like combining a number of vectors into a single direction. Submissive isn’t an orientation, straight isn’t an orientation, gay isn’t an orientation, in and of themselves; they are potential pieces of an individual’s orientation. This seems to take care of the “problem” of switches, a switch’s orientation has both dominant and submissive pieces, along with other aspects of orientation. Likewise, a straight male submissive and a gay male submissive have different orientations, though they share a building block. And it takes care of the issue that got me onto this track, people with more specific fetishes who aren’t sure outside of that where they fit onto any given spectrum. So, just a for instance, hypnofetishism could be a piece of an individual’s orientation, along with other sexual preferences. Only seems fair: if you ask Maymay what made him become submissive, why he started, he’d give you an incredulous stare (and then write the above entry); if you asked a straight man when and why he started to be straight there’d likewise be no possible answer; likewise for me and hypnosis.
by Boston Boy
08 Jan 2008 at 10:21
Yikes, I didn’t see May’s “sexuality is an N-faceted thing” line above. Yeah, pretty much that.
by Juliet
08 Jan 2008 at 11:24
Another aspect of the LG/straight analogy is those who enjoy both kink & vanilla. Another form of bisexuality, if you like :)
The answer “it just is” should always be acceptable; even if there’s also scope when people want it for further analysis.
by maymay
08 Jan 2008 at 14:02
Boston Boy,
That’s okay. I’ve pretty much resigned myself to the frustrating belief that in order to get a point across to a wide audience you pretty much have to make the point many times and in many different ways to be effective. You’re adding to my effort to do that, so yay and thank you!
Juliet,
Yes! Exactly! Very yes! That’s pretty much exactly how I see the word.
by SJ
08 Jan 2008 at 16:07
I find the English domestic servent in general to be models of masculine submission – butlers, grooms, coachmen all come to mind. Wild West ranch hands are an American model. Alfred, Bruce Wayne’s butler, seems a widely-known example.
Unfortunately, they are all examples of service submission, which isn’t necessarily the same thing as what you’re talking about.
by SJ
08 Jan 2008 at 16:08
Courtly love, and superheros, also, but I think you’ve talked about those before.
by maymay
08 Jan 2008 at 16:13
I should probably write about service sometime…it would probably be an entry about the distinctions between submission and how it relates to perceptions of authority, and people’s various responses to that. It’s kind of endlessly fascinating in that “this is such an academic interest and holds little to no visceral appeal for me whatsoever” sort of way, which is not to say it can’t be a lot of fun. But yeah, anyway, I’ll leave that for another post.
Yeah, I think I touched on some of that when I talked about common perceptions of men’s “needs”.
by Sue II
08 Jan 2008 at 22:05
This was such perfect timing. Several of my submissive male friends (and/or play friends) have been having variations of “I think I’m going to try to quit this submissive thing moments.”
*sighs*
I don’t think it’s something you can quit. I think it’s hardwired. I don’t say this just out of intuitive dominant gifts (although those superpowers do tend to lean towards the same conclusion), but rather after years upon years upon years of watching a myriad of people struggle with their sexuality. Predominantly submissive men struggling.
**this is the one form of submissive men struggling that doesn’t kink me out. this is a very sad and unfortunate struggle that tends to wear down a man’s soul in VERY unsexy and permanent ways**
Society says this is a bad thing, his submissive sexuality. It must be cured. He tries to find cures. And alarmingly, there are people out there who will capitalize upon *curing* him. Religious-y and Therapist-y type people usually.
People who classify someone’s sexuality as either a sin or a mental illness scare the bejeezus out of me. (I’m sure there are religiousy and therapisty type people who don’t fall into this category. I’ve never heard of one, however) They scare me because they don’t understand what they are talking about while dictating ‘solutions.’
These solutions? Do alot of damage. I mean… quite a bit. Scary amounts. Devaluing a person’s sexuality is devaluing a core part of them. Naming that person’s sexuality as evil or illness can shatter that person’s core. This decree coming from a person of some authority who is trying to “help” someone already in confusion? Argh.
*rage rage rage against ignorance that hurts others*
I’m sending this posting out to my friends in self-doubt and anguish. I just hope that people can come to not only acknowledge variation in other people’s orientation, but also themselves.
Thanks for this post.
by Curvaceous Dee
08 Jan 2008 at 22:12
A very thoughtful, and thought-provoking post. My main thought being that ideally a three-dimensional graph thinggumy would be the most accurate way of showing where on many spectrums – gay-straight, kinky-vanilla, sexual-asexual, dom-sub, monogamous-poly etc. people fall. Simply because there are so many variables involved.
xx Dee
by Tom Allen
09 Jan 2008 at 15:15
We’re accustomed to thinking in a linear fashion about pretty much everything. Good/bad, up/down, in/out, straight/gay. D & S aren’t so much orientations as modifiers that work along a different axis (and yes, I realize that using “axis” as an analogy implies that there is an orientation after all). When we’re thinking about sex, we’re mostly thinking about which slots and tabs are going together. And for the 80% of the population that is both straight and not very d/s-y inclined, this is a perfectly reasonable assumption.
Not that I disagree with your take on this, but it does seem to me that there has to be a better model to describe alternative sexualities, in a way that makes sense to just about everyone.
by maymay
09 Jan 2008 at 15:27
Agreed. The hardest part of this entry was trying to make the word “orientation” fit in any way at all. Frankly, it just doesn’t work very well for things like this. Hence all the talk of a sexuality’s many facets. These are the very early beginnings of a better conceptual model.
by Fluence
09 Jan 2008 at 15:36
Loads of great points made in this post and comments. I agree with Curvaceous Dee, I’ve been trying to get my head around how I could ‘map’ orientations for a while, but I get confused as after 3 axes you have to imagine new dimensions, which I don’t know how to draw. Also, rather than a fixed point somewhere in this matrix, my orientation flows around an area, but occasionally zooms to other parts of the multidimensional map altogether. It makes my head hurt.
by Dw3t-Hthr
09 Jan 2008 at 17:20
A mostly-mothballed project of mine (and one of my partners) is basically an orientational geekcode, because I realised that in order to properly describe my sexual orientation I needed enough axes to require theoretical higher mathematics.
Heterosexual (so far as I’m aware) but with strong gender preference that could be considered homo-genderal (geek socialisation/social role); oriented polyamorous; oriented towards intense, committed, long-term relationships; probably a five towards submission on whatever six-point d/s scale one might come up with; oriented to sexual response involving precisely two people; oriented kinky to a moderate extent but not requiring A Kinky Relationship; … I’m missing a lot of things I came up with, honestly, but this stuff is intricate.
by SJ
12 Jan 2008 at 12:10
Sue II:
I don’t think sexuality is necessarily hardwired in any of its components. Sexuality can be an outgrowth of other needs. Lots of people do lots of things for love, for example. If one fills the underlaying need, the sexual expression, and sexuality, will change. Also, I think people evolve over time, and their tastes change.
Also, I don’t think that something being hardwired means it can’t or shouldn’t be modified. Near-sightedness is a hardware defect which we correct with glasses, contacts, and surgery. Hardwired chemical depression is treated with drugs. Treating sexuality as an illness is unpalatable, but might not be unreasonable. I think the key is who decides. I think as long as the individual people get to decide, rather than institutionalized prejudices or mob rule, I think we would be alright.
by John
18 Jan 2008 at 00:09
I’ve been reading all this, and several light bulbs went on. The first is that in some sense D/s trumps the other conventional categories like gay/straight, at least for me. When I look at my relationships, the submissive desire has been dominant (if I may say), and the other forms have been expressions of that desire to submit. For instance, whether I’m submissive toward a man or a woman, the overriding desire is really to submit.
I’m very new at this, and have been looking at which “identities” might express that desire–crossdressing, transsexuality, cuckholdry, etc.,and none of them quite fit. All of them are, I’m coming to think, are confused expressions of a strong submissive desire. Since submissive is not recognized as a sexual identity, I’ve tried to make do with the other socially referenced identities.
Thank you so much!
by maymay
18 Jan 2008 at 02:12
John, I’m glad this works for you, for now. If I can perhaps be permitted to give one more nugget of advice, it would be to never be afraid to question that submission, ever. I am not my identities…even though my identities are a part of me.
Also, thanks for the wonderful comment. And thanks for reading. :)
by John
18 Jan 2008 at 13:54
Thanks! I’m not sure what you mean by “question that submission”, except to not take on an identity falsely. Really, it feels more like an expression of a desire, and so my hope is to fearlessly expressed those desire, and let them free.
Pingback
by Link Love: Inspirations | The Andro-Aperture Project
20 Jun 2011 at 09:19
[…] porn is out there is total shit relative to the porn available for other sorts of orientations. In such erotica (unless it’s gay imagery, of course) men are portrayed as […]
Pingback
by Orgasm Denial Does Not Submissive Men Make « Maybe Maimed but Never Harmed
21 Nov 2011 at 19:43
[…] But before I get too far into what I find so upsetting about the way this is framed, let’s make one thing clear: what I’m about to say has nothing to do with espousing a submissive ideology, a One True Way® for being a “real submissive.” It’s irrational to, for instance, call a self-identified switch “a submissive” when that person is feeling submissive by sole virtue of their feelings; they are no more or less “a submissive” than they say they are, despite how desirous of submissive feelings they are at any given time. Insofar as identity politics are involved, they stop at the point of acknowledging that your identity is a part in your personal experience of the world. […]
Pingback
by BDSM Orientation and ways of loving « lipstickandligature
16 May 2012 at 14:37
[…] I can say for certain is this: many people feel that their kinky sexuality is an integral part of their personality which needs to be expressed in order to for them to feel happy. Many people see BDSM as a means of […]