|
Benefits of Master-Mistress and Slave Relationships
ASK THE THERAPIST
June 1993
by William A. Henkin, Ph.D.
Copyright © 1993 by William A. Henkin
<Q>
What are the benefits and disadvantages to a person who
participates in a Master/ slave or Mistress/ slave
relationship?
<A>
It depends who the participants in this relationship are,
and it depends as well on how they define their terms. In
The Lesbian S/M Safety Manual,
edited by Pat Califia (Boston: Alyson, 1988), Diane Vera
observes that "slave" is a word frequently bandied
about by, and with regard to, people who are not even
especially submissive; and it's been my observation that
the corollary holds true for "Master" and
"Mistress": that they are much overused terms
frequently adopted by or applied to people who are really
simply topping, or doing bottoms.
I don't think there's anything wrong with simple topping
or bottoming: it's basic SM, and can be lots of fun as
well as highly informative. I do think there's a great
value in naming what we're doing accurately, however,
since that accuracy can help us know ourselves and our
partners, and – if for no other reason than that we can
then communicate more precisely about what we want and
need – can help us have hotter, more satisfying scenes.
To address the confusions that result from what she
thought was the misuse of bottom terms, Vera developed
a couple of lists, one called "Nine Degrees of
Submission," the other called "Kinds of
Masochism and/ or Submission." Her "Nine
Degrees" range from "1.The outright
non-submissive masochist or kinky sensualist"
to "9. Consensual total slave with no limits."
Her "Kinds" include two forms of Adversarial
masochism/ submission, four of Reverential
masochism/submission, and one version of Macabre-Humor
masochism.
Cynthia Slater, founder of the Society of Janus,
composed her own list of Four Basic Slave Types: 1.
Novice/ Puppy; 2. Smart-Assed Masochist; 3.
Trainable slave/ servant; 4. Captive. She intended
her list for one-scene fantasy reference only, so
the four types are not specifically applicable to
long-term Master/ slave or Mistress/ slave
relationships; but I find them relevant as a
guide to certain kinds of SM-relational styles.
Over time, building on Cynthia's scenarios, I
have also developed a little list. My Five
Basic Bottom Types are: 1. Fetishist; 2.
Masochist; 3. Submissive; 4. Pet; 5. Slave.
For me, these five types express a Progression
in Limits, from very narrow to nearly unrestricted.
You, too, may have some sort of list, or knowing
about these you may be inspired to concoct one.
If so, the questions that are likely to matter
are, where does the relationship you and your
partner(s) enjoy really fall in the spectrum of
SM or dominance and submission? And, what do you
mean by the labels you adopt?
When I top I want my bottoms to refer to me by some
agreed-upon honorific (e.g., "Sir") because
it helps to clarify our roles. When I bottom I want
to refer to my top in a similarly special way for
the same sort of reason. But whether I'm topping
or bottoming I regard Master and Mistress as titles
of respect individuals earn through their knowledge
of themselves, of topping, and of their bottoms. I
do not think every top is a Master or Mistress; I
do not think every bottom is a slave or a submissive;
I do not want to call someone Master, Mistress, or
slave who does not have that particular, very
special relationship with me; nor do I want to
be referred to as slave or Master (or Mistress,
but that's another column) by someone from whom
I have not earned that singularly deep honor.
Since, as far as I can see, it is possible to
be a slave in a relationship with a top who is
not your Master or Mistress, or to be a Master
or Mistress in a relationship with a bottom who
is not your slave, all my compulsive specificity
need not get in the way of plenty of play, if
that's your bent.
Of course, all my considerations about terminology
may not even matter to you. No problem. What does
matter is that the terms you use in your relationship
convey to you and your partner(s) what you intend
them to convey. If you know what you get out of SM,
and out of topping or bottoming to begin with, you'll
have a clearer sense of what benefits and disadvantages
you might derive from being a Master, Mistress, or
slave in a relationship.
For me, an SM or DS slave is someone who is voluntarily
owned: who elects to give up much or all emotional,
psychological, and physical control in a relationship
(if not in his/her life) to another person who voluntarily
takes on the responsibility the first person relinquishes.
The slave's behavior is relatively independent of the top's
emotional responses, however – that is, the slave will
continue to perform his/her duties regardless of the
Master's or Mistress's kindness, harshness, or even
absence – because ownership invokes and is invoked by
his/her extremely deep commitment to the relationship
and to his/her part in it.
What the Master or Mistress gets from this relationship
may come down to something as simple as having his or
her desires, as well as his or her needs, met on an
ongoing basis, by someone whose devotion and loyalty
need not be questioned. What the slave gets may be
as simple as the comfort, satisfaction, and security
of being owned or possessed – and, of course, the
pleasure of pleasing his/her Master or Mistress –
whether or not the slave's position is pleasant
or comfortable.
As usual, though, for every pro there is a con.
The Master or Mistress in such a relationship must
be clear, precise, and constantly aware of his/ her
own limits as well as the slave's. The slave must
be ready to risk not having his/ her needs met,
receiving no direct stimulation, and getting far
more (or less) than s/he bargained for going
into the relationship.
Few people – tops or bottoms – really want or
are emotionally or psychologically ready to
undertake the depth of commitment a true Master/slave
or Mistress/slave relationship demands; but those
I've met who have done it successfully say no
other kind of relationship they have ever encountered
approaches it for intimacy and the possibilities of
personal growth.
|