|
Mr. Togneri intended these essays to be read in order. For this reason they were placed in one document as Mr. Togneri intended. Essay 1: Absolute Lifestyle D/s By J. Mikael Togneri © Nowhere but in BDSM is quite so much personal opinion passed off as irrefutable fact. That is perhaps not very strange in a lifestyle that is characterized by having no recognized authorities, just sensible guidelines, and no universally defined standards, only gut feelings. Many people are after all vaguely disturbed by anything that doesn't fit neatly into a box or onto a chart. Because of this lack of uniform definitions, no approach to the lifestyle has been more misunderstood – indeed often deliberately maligned – than the absolute lifestyle. In the absence of any attempt to define it, over-active imaginations have had a field day, as much to the detriment of lifestyle D/s at large, as to the embarrassment of those who have succeeded only in demonstrating their own narrow-mindedness. The adjective "absolute" is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as "complete; unrestricted; independent". Based on that, the interpretation of the term "absolute D/s" might appear self-evident, but it is not. "Absolutism" in the lifestyle refers to the small minority at the extreme end of the D/s spectrum where fantasy ends and reality begins. Absolute D/s is not an organized school of thought with its associated dogma. It is, above and beyond anything else, a practice, the way in which some of us pursue our lifestyle. Indeed, the absolute minority contains not only a number of different approaches, but perhaps the greatest diversity found anywhere on the BDSM spectrum. Nevertheless, it stands to reason that in order for any given approach to be truly absolute, it must conform in its salient features to the definition of that term. This, then, is not an attempt to define the absolute lifestyle in any depth, because that would be quite impossible, but to formulate those relatively few views and practices that are common to all who call their lifestyle and their relationships absolute. As definitions go, this essay could only ever hope to cover the bare bones, as it were. Absolute D/s is not something that we do as often as "real life" allows, because to us it is real life. It is a life style; the very foundation of all that we do, and everything that we are. Dominance and submission are natural imperatives, not conscious choices; they are driven by instinct, not desire. They do not come in degrees; they either are, or they are not. Reality is the key word in absolute D/s and one cannot, after all, be partially real. Absolute dominants and submissives do not separate D/s from other activities, because it is not an activity in and of itself. Our proclivities for domination or submission cannot be confined to any structure or specific context because they are congenital, not acquired. We dominate or submit, not because we want to do it, but because we can't not do it. In short, natural dominants and submissives are born, not made. Nor is absolute D/s merely a sexual kink. It is not a variation on an erotic theme, and sexual gratification is not the point of the exercise. The object of absolute D/s is not pleasure, but fulfillment. Sexuality may be – but isn't always – an ingredient; and when it is, it becomes a means, not an end. Even at its most intensely physical, the goal of S&M within absolute D/s is not orgasm, but ecstasy. The natural mechanisms that trigger the responses to which we loosely refer as dominance and submission are different from, but every bit as primordial as, the sexual urges to which they are traditionally – and mistakenly – attributed. The main difference between mainstream and absolute D/s is subtle but fundamental. Mainstream D/s takes place within the framework of the day-to-day. It maintains the freedom to choose between any one of a myriad of categories and intensities of dominance and submission – sometimes even to shift back and forth between them – but with neither the ability nor the desire to pursue them consistently or totally. Conversely, the absolute lifestyle integrates the day-to-day within the framework of dominance and submission. It pursues dominance and submission totally, because it is the main driving force in every aspect of life, but without the freedom to pick and choose, because each person's route has already been laid out for them by nature. Mainstream submission is centered upon a particular person and for the most part only in certain circumstances and within certain limits. It can be given and revoked at will, and is often subject to any number of predefined conditions. There is a clear-cut distinction between contexts, and activities such as work and family life are usually considered outside the scope of that submission. Mainstream D/s is a traditional couple relationship where the dominance and submission, however important and defining they might be, are but one of several components. Absolute submission, on the other hand, is centered upon itself and remains constant in all circumstances. It is unconditional and unlimited, and there is no distinction between contexts since one is a slave always and in all ways. The M/s (as absolute D/s invariably is) relationship is not a traditional couple relationship but a symbiosis, where dominance and submission are not only the defining characteristics of the relationship, but the relationship purely and simply. As a result, where submission usually grows out of love in mainstream D/s, in absolute D/s love sometimes grows out of submission. A slave is owned in the most literal sense of that term. She is property; chattel; livestock; a commodity – the terms are as many as they are politically incorrect. Master/mistress and slave are not a couple, not partners, not remotely equal, in any way, shape or form; and an absolute M/s relationship typically resembles one of owner/pet rather more than one of person/person. As with all other property, the owner may dispose of his slave entirely as he sees fit, without exception. There is no negotiation prior to accepting a collar; the dominant states his terms, and the would-be slave takes them or leaves them. There is no partial or temporary consent; it is total, once-and-for-all, and irrevocable. The absolute slave forfeits all human rights and privileges, and has no other – let alone "higher" – duty or obligation, than to serve and obey her owner at all times, in every way, and to the very best of her ability. Because the slave's consent is permanent and all-encompassing, the concept of abuse within an absolute M/s relationship becomes meaningless. Anything that happens is entirely justified by the simple fact that the owner wants it to happen. In this light the notion of "safe BDSM" that is so often put forward in various forms becomes a contradiction in terms. We do not "scene" in the traditional sense, because the inherent distinctions within the concept do not apply; life itself would be one long, uninterrupted "scene". We do not use safe-words, and the submission and consent must encompass the possibility that even death might ensue. It is a source of great mystery to me that many who call themselves submissives will gladly and without question place their lives in the hands of total strangers, whenever they get in a car or on an airplane, require surgery or eat at restaurants, yet insist on a list of safety mechanisms as long as your arm with the person to whom they purport to submit. The most readily apparent characteristic of absolute slavehood is that it is primarily service-oriented and unconcerned with what might be gained in return. The absolute slave finds her raison d'être in service to others, and her identity in the greatest possible reduction of self. The term TPE (total power exchange) which is generally regarded as the most "hard-line" form of mainstream D/s relationship cannot apply to absolute M/s because the M/s relationship is a symbiosis, and contrary to common misconception a symbiosis is not an exchange. It is a host/parasite relationship in which it just so happens that both are simultaneously host and parasite to one another. Each symbiant provides something that the other needs, but does so passively, merely by existing – indeed sometimes as a by-product of the very action of getting what it itself needs. Conversely, an exchange requires deliberation and is conditional upon a predefined relationship between giving and receiving. In absolute M/s the flow of power is one-way only, from the submissive to the dominant, and the giving and taking of power are not contingent upon any exterior conditions or circumstances. The empowerment and serenity of absolute slavehood are not given to her in exchange for her submission, but come from within herself, enabled to do so because a number of life choices and responsibilities have been turned over to the dominant. For that reason, the absolute lifestyle refutes the frequently encountered mainstream BDSM contention that submission is a gift. This notion is undiluted nonsense no matter the level or type of submission, but in Absolute it becomes downright absurd. A gift is something that is given unconditionally and without expecting anything in return, otherwise it is a transaction. A submissive not only gets back what she gives, but gets more. She submits, not because she chooses to, but because she is instinctively compelled by her own nature to do so, and from the dominant she receives the opportunity to submit. In other words, she gives her dominant all that she is, while the dominant makes it possible for her to be all that she is. Everything that a submissive puts into the M/s relationship is invariably returned to her in refined and augmented form. Moreover, since submission is primarily to one's own nature, it is not directed at the dominant to begin with, just as what she gets back is not given through any deliberate act of will on his part. So there can be talk of neither an exchange nor a gift, but of the very dynamics of a master/slave relationship: automatic and independent of any conscious effort on the part of either participant. It must be underscored that a mainstream submissive is not a failed absolute slave, nor is an absolute slave a super-submissive. The difference between mainstream submission and absolute slavehood is neither quantitative nor qualitative, but one of two distinctly separate mind sets, whose common features are superficial at best. The absolute lifestyle accounts for a very small minority on the BDSM spectrum – at a conservative estimate, no more than some 5% of the total BDSM community – but having neither chosen nor worked to achieve this minority status, it would be ridiculous for us to consider ourselves as some kind of elite. Likewise, it is wrong of those who are located elsewhere on the spectrum to consider us fantasy-based, or even sick, as some mainstreamers have called us. We are neither better nor worse than anybody else, but we are different and we object to anyone who would either deny that difference or deride us for it. Absolute dominants and submissives are the only ones who truly do live D/s as a complete lifestyle. There is nothing wrong with playing at dominance and submission; nothing wrong with being sexually aroused by the fantasy of master/mistress and slave. But it is spectacularly unfair to both those who really are, and those who pretend to be, to place us in the same category.
Essay 2: Spirituality In Slavehood By J. Mikael Togneri © 2003
This ring pledges you to sincere and serene humility,
unquestioning obedience, confident unfailing trust in
your Dominant, and a fervent desire - but without
selfish emotional exaggerations - to become a slave Although natural absolute slavehood is the expression of an instinctual and primeval need to submit far more comprehensively than the erotic role-playing of mainstream D/s, it extends beyond our rudimentary animal heritage into the very core of our rational human soul. The absolute submissive not only desires slavery but needs it in order to achieve fulfillment and identity. This need for slavery, this so-called "dark imperative" that governs natural submission, is apparent at all levels of existence, the instinctual, the emotional and the intellectual. In other words, slavehood is a vocation, comparable and equal in every way to any religious calling. As with all other vocations, slavehood is not automatic. It must be closely examined and, when found to be genuine, nurtured and guided. Unlike most other levels of submission, slavehood is primarily of a spiritual nature. It shares the bulk of its physical and material aspects with the more superficial approaches to the lifestyle, but it does not recognize sexuality as the principal vehicle for, let alone the goal of, a profound and pervasive submission destined to develop into lifelong slavery. Having established that slavehood is a vocation, the similarity between a life in slavery and monastic life becomes straightforward. Both are simultaneously introvert and extrovert, contemplative and active, spiritual and material. In both, energies of one aspect of life – apparently at odds with the other – are so channeled as to enable a harmony to develop, wherein each gives strength to the other so that together they become more than the sum of their component parts. Most importantly, however, the modus operandi of both pivots on service and the greatest possible reduction of self. It is important to bear in mind that, regardless of her status of collaring, a slave submits primarily to her own nature. The apparent paradox of introvert/extrovert comes to light – and is resolved – when this basic fact is understood. That she requires a material, external focus for her submission, i.e. the dominant, does not alter the fact that on the spiritual level her submission is essentially introverted. One could say that through the dominant she submits to herself by proxy. Religious practice contains a number of sadomasochistic elements, from penance, confession and absolution, to servitude, abstinence and flagellation. By far most, if not all, religions contain rituals of this nature, designed to focus the spirit and enhance the sanctity of the individual. No matter the perspective, therefore, the fact remains that the magic of religion and BDSM is the same. If, as postulated here, magical practices are sadomasochistic, it follows that sadomasochistic practices are magical. The reason BDSM looks so much like a religious act is quite simply that it is a religious act. The evocation and experience of the divine is as primary in BDSM as the means by which they are sought. There is a duality in the BDSM practice which closely parallels that of religious practice, in some instances so closely that the very symbolism employed is the same. The descent into submission is as much concerned with the practical matter of materializing a daemon appropriate to submit to, as it is concerned with the submissive's own self-reduction. As she is beaten it is confirmed that He is stronger; as she is humiliated, He rises in stature and power; as she is blindfolded, He becomes all-seeing; as she is bound He becomes omnipotent; as she is punished He grants her absolution; and so on. It is important to underscore that what is sought here is an experience of the divine, not of divinity. Dominants are not deities, and no amount of reference to one's Mistress as a goddess will alter that fact. The role of the dominant is more comparable to that of a priest in Christian tradition. That is to say, a human among humans who guides the congregation, himself included, into a deeper submission to and reverence for that which is holy. The priest is a vessel of sanctity, the link between congregation and the divine; he himself possesses neither more nor less divinity than any other. If the dominant is attributed special powers of any kind, they are not magical in and of themselves, but rather at most in rare harmony with Creation in general and his own nature in particular. This is not unlike the powers of a shaman, who is a particularly gifted and perceptive individual, certainly, but by no means superhuman. So the mechanisms of BDSM tap into the common denominator of all religions. The BDSM ritual may be predominantly sexual in expression, however the goal is not gratification per se, but ecstasy. BDSM is, above and beyond a physical need, the psyche's effort to make sex a sacrament. Only through the understanding and acceptance of the sacramental value of submission will slavehood be true. By the same token, of course, it also becomes holy. Sacramental and holy though it might be, BDSM is not – and could never become – a religion in its own right. It can, however, be incorporated into a religious lifestyle, and for those who are thus inclined it must be. Whatever dogmatic complications arise in the process, it is indisputable that neither submission nor dominance can exist aside from, or parallel with, the other elements that make up a human life. No matter the condemnatory rhetoric of others, who most probably have understood neither BDSM nor their own religion particularly well, there must be no conflict between them in the mind of the submissive herself. It is paramount that she be provided with the wherewithal to practice her religious life as a natural element of her submission. The importance of pursuing slavehood for anyone who has a calling to it is self-evident. The vast amount of hard work required to achieve this depth of submission is only marginally more daunting than staying there. As many religious people and natural submissives alike have discovered through the ages, the fact of the matter is that meekness requires an iron will. However, despite these hardships – and most emphatically contrary to the views prevalent in BDSM orthodoxy – slavery can never be a goal unto itself. No vocation that is pursued for its own sake has value. The humility learned in the collar should be the perspective from which all of Creation is viewed. The strength derived from a successful and spiritually gratifying lifestyle should be placed at the disposal of all who need it. The endurance developed under the rigors of pain, chastisement and labor, should translate into tolerance and forbearance of all who think and act according to other values – even those who would deny the legitimacy or validity of the BDSM lifestyle. The acute awareness of identity through meditation and examination of the submissive nature should lead to a greater understanding of – and thereby respect for – disparate cultural and moral backgrounds. The obedience and selflessness that are the distinguishing characteristics of any natural slave should be expanded to include not just a Master or Mistress but humanity at large. Without these, the entire journey into slavery will have been meaningless, valueless and morally void. Webmaster's note: This essay is part of a series and per the author's request they should be read in order. To that end please use the following links to move to the prior essay or the next one in the series. The back button will return you to the index page for this series.
Essay 3: In His Interest By J. Mikael Togneri © 2003 It is impossible to discuss D/s relationships on-line, in person or anywhere else, without the topic of trust arising very early on as a central issue. However, it is questionable whether that trust is always placed in the right areas – indeed whether what is being demanded really is trust in the first place. One of the most often repeated statements, when a submissive explains why she calls herself a slave, is that "I know that he is a responsible man, and I trust that he will have my best interests at heart at all times." In the absolute M/s relationship, however, that is very far from always the case. A dominant basically has one single responsibility toward his slave: to provide her with the wherewithal to serve and obey to the best of her ability. Any other responsibilities that exist within such a relationship are invariably hers. When she bares her neck for his collar, a slave gives her owner blanket consent to anything that he might wish to do to her, not do to her, give her or take away from her. In absolute M/s the slave is property, nothing more, nothing less. The dominant literally owns his slave; mind, body, heart and soul, up to and including the power over her life and death. Her submission is unconditional, all-encompassing and permanent, or it cannot be said to be absolute by any standards. So the master in an absolute M/s relationship cannot have his slave's best interests at heart at all times. The logic is simple: should a conflict of interests arise, no matter how insignificant, if the master defers to his slave, he would instantly cease to be master, and she would no longer be his slave. He is not bound by any moral or ethical standards other than his own, and he has only his own best interests at heart. Paradoxical though it might seem, here is where the real guarantee for the submissive lies. It precludes any of those ridiculously outlandish scenarios that are so often put forth in discussions of trust, which are not only extremely unrealistic in any case, but particularly ludicrous in connection with absolute M/s. One quite simply does not invest the time, effort, and money in training a slave and accommodating her needs, just to squander it all on a whim, any more than one would purchase a Rolls-Royce just to plough a field and then dump it in a ditch when it runs out of petrol. The dominant who has his own interests at heart takes excellent care of his property; maintains it, so to speak, if only in order to ensure a reasonable return on his investment. And although BDSM orthodoxy often seems to disagree, the fact of the matter is that a slave represents a considerable investment. When assessing the potential for a fulfilling M/s relationship, the slave does not consider a dominant's ability – or even desire – to look out for her interests, but his ability to look out for his own. I called this the real guarantee for the submissive, but I might just as well have called it the only guarantee, because this is as good as it gets. In discussions of BDSM it soon becomes apparent that the overwhelming majority of the needs expressed by a submissive are in fact wants. By the same token, most or all of her stated requirements for trust are in fact requirements for security. However, it stands to reason that in any D/s relationship, and certainly in an absolute M/s relationship, there is very little room for a slave's wants, and not much more for her security, either. A slave is a human being with all the associated needs, but it should be borne in mind exactly how few those needs actually are. The frequently quoted Abraham Maslow erred on a number of pivotal points in his Hierarchy of Needs, and nowhere is this seen more clearly than from the perspective of the BDSM lifestyle. Human beings basically have three needs: nutrition, shelter and intellectual/emotional stimulus. The currently popular feel-good tyranny aside, the quality of life does not determine a need, only life itself does. We only actually need those relatively few things it would literally kill us not to have. Security is often presented as a need, but it is not. The statement to the effect that a submissive needs to feel secure in order to trust a dominant is a contradiction in terms. Trust is an act of faith, and the defining characteristic of faith is certainty in the absence of evidence. In other words, trust is given before a dominant has proven himself, before the provision of any other evidence than the submissive's gut feeling. Once he has, and there is more tangible evidence to go by, it is no longer a matter of trust, but one of certain knowledge. However, the only way for her to acquire that evidence is to trust first and ask pertinent questions later. Very little in life is risk-free, and submission is definitely among the more risk-filled of human pursuits. There is no way to realistically minimize that risk. Indeed, anyone who demands a relationship that is clinically void of risk is not only demanding the impossible, but is also short-changing him/herself in the process. The current trend among many people to reverse cause and effect, so to speak, by wanting to turn what can only ever be the result of a commitment into its prerequisite, is by no means peculiar to our lifestyle. Indeed, if at all possible, this misconception is perhaps even more widespread among our non-BDSM surroundings, where relationships frequently fail for precisely that reason. Yet perhaps it stands out more in BDSM because there it becomes even more meaningless and self-defeating than in other kinds of relationship. Attempting to take the risk out of BDSM is like attempting to avoid air pollution by not breathing. It is so often forgotten that faith is not blind at all. It merely "sees" with another kind of vision, a sense with which we are all born, but which we are taught to ignore. If a submissive has an issue with trust, she must learn to trust herself and her own instincts first and foremost. If something feels right to her, there's a very real likelihood that it is.
Let What You Have Said Be Done To Me By J. Mikael Togneri © If the Holy Bible were a movie with a cast of thousands, the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress would undoubtedly have gone to the Virgin Mary. Throughout Christendom, and perhaps within the Roman Catholic Church in particular, Mary Mother of God stands head and shoulders above the rest, as a figure of inspiration worthy of our utmost and sincere admiration. There is ample justification for this, and the very same reasons quoted by the Church for her special role could be used to illustrate why she ought to be declared Patron Saint of the BDSM community. Whether you insist that the Bible's contents are absolutely factual, or merely acknowledge their fundamental truth, the description of Mary makes fascinating reading. Consider for a moment what we are told about her, and what we know about the time and place in which she lived. Nazareth is an insignificant little backwater in a backward little province of the Roman Empire. In this community of perhaps a hundred individuals, we find a young girl no older than 12 or 13. Her family is poor, illiterate, and living in a particularly misogynic society whose moral values are based on equal parts Mosaic fundamentalism and age-old superstition. Not yet married, she is kept secluded from the male members of her community as much as the struggle for survival allows. Then one night, according to Saint Luke, the archangel Gabriel visits her and informs her that she will bear a child, the human incarnation of God Almighty. Saint Luke passes over it diplomatically, but there can be no doubt that the poor girl must have been frightened out of her wits. Never mind the fact that she would conceive out of wedlock, a condition that could easily have got her stoned to death. Here was an apparition speaking to her of events whose consequences she couldn't begin to fathom, telling her that her son would grow up to save all humankind from sin and eventually take "the throne of His ancestor David". And yet with no demand for guarantees nor even an explanation, her simple response is: "I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let what you have said be done to me." And it most certainly was. She had to give birth to her son in a stable, then flee the country on a donkey to save Him from slaughter. She had to raise what would now be termed a particularly gifted and precocious child without the benefit of our modern knowledge and support. She would see Him grow into puberty and beyond, different, ostracized, eventually persecuted simply for being who He was. She would watch from the sidelines as her Son gathered an adoring crowd around Him, earning the wrath of the authorities in the process, and watch as that very same crowd betrayed Him and turned against Him in vicious scorn, when the clamp-down finally occurred. And then she had to live through the worst tragedy that can befall any parent: the premature loss of her child, and that by particularly painful and barbaric means. By and large a very different life to the one she must have had in mind when she got engaged to the local carpenter in her home town. We are not told whether she complained in later years, but we may be certain that she suffered greatly and often. First and foremost, however, she endured. Beyond the Annunciation itself, there is nothing to support the notion that she would have known anything at all about her Son's future before it unfolded. She never even asked what there might be in this for her. She did what she did based on faith alone; her faith that God would never demand anything of her that she would not be able to give. Although she never spoke them again, throughout her life she persistently stood by her words to Gabriel that night in Nazareth. In short she submitted, freely and totally. No pre-negotiated scening among equal partners, no safe-words, no limits and no opt-out clause. Nothing but pure, unadulterated submission, based on faith alone. Now, it would be a mistake to read into this that Mary was the ultimate submissive in any BDSM interpretation of the term. She was not a kinky lady. But her example is worth noting nonetheless, in a community that prides itself of going farther, deeper and higher than "normal" people can. For all its lack of direct perv appeal, Mary's submission was far more genuine and total than what most of us in the lifestyle would consider adequate. It is inconceivable that any submissive or slave could emulate that level of courage and commitment. Not that it matters of course, since there is obviously no dominant who could hope to come close to God by a long shot - although many of the wannabes don't seem to realize this. All of which does not mean, however, that there is no inspiration to be found here, no lessons to be learned; quite on the contrary. You can have a great time with role-playing games, safe-words and other means by which to simulate a master/mistress-slave relationship for a period of time ranging from a few hours to life. If that is what you enjoy then no one has the right to criticize or belittle it. But it is just not submission. Establishing limits and expecting the dominant to abide by them reduces him or her to the role of assistant to the submissive's pleasure. It is conceptually impossible to submit and stay in control at the same time. Nor can one switch it on or off as fancy or opportunity takes one. Submission is an on-going, permanent and irreversible process. It doesn't end with the words or the collar or the brand or whatever. In point of fact, it only just begins there and must be renewed hour after hour, day after day. The security, the caring, the love perhaps, even the turn-on; all these things are the results of, not the prerequisites for, all genuine submission. A slave is entirely and absolutely free to choose whether or not to submit, and to whom, but having chosen s/he relinquishes all control to his/her owner completely. S/he can only do so on faith, because there can be no guarantees. Submission by its very nature dictates no terms and sets no limits. It is undertaken, not because one wants to, but because one cannot not do it, come what may. It goes far beyond the merely sexual, to the point where it isn't gender-specific at all. It goes far beyond reason or logic, since no one this writer knows who has ever submitted, has done so without their alarm klaxons hooting all over the place. And thus we come full circle to Mary again, who submitted despite logic, despite certain knowledge of the risks she was running, and certainly despite her personal fears and ambitions. "Let what you have said be done to me."
Seven Pillars Of Dominance By J. Mikael Togneri © The topic of experience often comes up when discussing BDSM. Experience is the sum-total of everything we have learned in a given field, and everything that we will learn in future. I was born dominant and actively entered this lifestyle when I was seventeen, over two decades ago. I find myself today at the extreme "hard-line" end of the BDSM spectrum, a minority within a minority. Do I have experience? Yes. Do I hold strong views? Certainly – even controversial ones. Do I have much still to learn? Of course; everyone does. What I have learned thus far can be summed up as follows:
In short, to use an archaic phrase, noblesse oblige. If a dominant is the centre of a submissive's universe, it is because she thinks so, not because he does. No one is respected, let alone obeyed, just coz. The truth of the matter is that owning is at least as much work as being owned.
Reality Check By J. Mikael Togneri © Many of those who for some reason feel a need to criticize the absolute D/s minority apparently entertain the absurd notion that our approach to the lifestyle is "fantasy-based". For reasons fathomable only to themselves, they contend that only the fantasy of a master/slave relationship can be truly real, whereas a real master/slave relationship can exist only in fantasy. This is but one example of the impressive semantic gymnastics to which they have to resort in the absence of worthier arguments. Refuting their assertions is a bit like stealing candy from a child, but I must admit to a total absence of remorse in that connection. I have heard this so often that I finally had to react. Consider this a mercy killing. Of course, not all lifestyle practices that are real can be said to be absolute, but it is undeniable that all absolute approaches are perfectly real. Yet we are told that the reality of absolute D/s cannot truly exist, because slavery has no legal or social foundation today. Consequently, it is said, a slave isn't really property, isn't really bound to serve and obey beyond her own desire, and can leave a relationship any time, merely by walking out the door. However, this is a facile argument that lacks imagination as much as it lacks merit. Just because society makes an option available to us, it does not necessarily follow that we must consider it an option for ourselves. This is not a matter of the law, but one of mindset. To point out that a slave can legally terminate a collared relationship unilaterally is one thing, but to suggest that she might actually do so is fantastically insulting. It would require that she break the most important commitment she has ever made, and willfully disregard every principle she holds dear. It is every bit as disrespectful as to suggest that an orthodox Jew would eat pork if there was nothing else in the fridge. No matter how legal and obtainable abortion may be, for example, many women would never consider it an option for them personally, based on their ethical or moral standpoints. By the same token, a slave's reasons for discounting some of the options that might be socially or legally available to her are equally compelling and valid. In the abortion debate it seems that the "pro-choice" faction often deliberately ignores that being genuinely pro-choice also means accommodating the right to not choose abortion. The same form of "pro-choice" tyranny in the guise of freedom is seen in our critics’ reaction to absolute slavery. We are told that only "mindless doormats" would ever submit to that degree; that a submissive must be strong and independent, and not prone to "blind obedience". However, there is no submission in being "forced" to do only what one wants to do, when one wants to do it. In discussions of monasticism or the military, no one seems to object to obedience, just as no one would call a monk, a nun or a soldier mindless, merely on account of their chosen walks of life. On the contrary, both the military and the Orders are highly respected institutions, and there is no reason for which absolute slavehood should be any less so. Although natural submission is in-born, it literally takes years of soul-searching and sheer hard work to become a slave. One must assume that the "doormat" argument is used mainly by those who begrudge us this admirable level of dedication and commitment, because it has no logical or objective basis. At this point our reality-based friends usually start entertaining us with outrageously unrealistic "what if" scenarios such as, "supposing over dinner one night your owner suddenly decided he wanted you to murder your parents and eat your kids, then set fire to yourself and jump out of an airplane at 15,000 feet. Would you really obey then?" I assure the reader, I am not making this stuff up. The exaggeration in the above example lies only in that four separate scenarios have been combined into one, but all four actually come up in discussions at regular intervals. The imagination of those who claim that the absolute lifestyle is fantasy-based is indeed a fertile one. Certainly we have all heard the horror-stories, and there is no denying the veracity of a few of them. However, they can be discounted here for two reasons: first of all because the vast majority of these incidents are related by people who have not actually witnessed them – nor anything remotely like them – and they are for the most part variations on a handful of tall tales that have circulated in the lifestyle since Adam first smacked Eve (which event took place approximately five minutes after Lilith first smacked Adam). Second, because they invariably deal with alleged wannabe dominants, as opposed to the genuine article, and nearly all of them take place at public events where the end result always seems to be that someone more savvy and reasonable steps in and saves the situation in the nick of time. In other words, no harm is actually done, although we are assured that it was this close to happening, with general mayhem and catastrophe just around the corner. Chilling, huh? All of these arguments are laughable for the very simple reason that they are so far beyond worst-case scenarios as to join the ranks of science fiction. Nobody becomes a galloping mental case at the drop of a hat. No wannabe was ever mistaken for a genuine dominant by any submissive who had just a modicum of experience in the lifestyle. In both cases all the signs are there to see for those who know what to look for – and who take the time to look for them! – and a natural submissive is nothing if not supremely observant. The likelihood of ever being helpless in the presence of a maniac suddenly gone out of control without prior warning, is abysmally small. Should it happen nonetheless, however, there is every reason to believe that by far the most likely cause would be rank stupidity on the part of the submissive. She would have had to be so desperate for an "experience" as to forgo the usual (long) period of getting to know one’s future dominant, whether for a single evening or for life. Absolute D/s does not contain many guarantees, but one of them is that a submissive invariably gets the dominant she deserves. This is not to say that nothing untoward ever happens, of course. On the contrary, accidents and near-misses take place all the time. Very little – if indeed anything at all – in the BDSM repertoire could possibly be construed as safe, and no amount of education, experience, safe-words or dungeon rules will ever alter that fact. However, most accidents happen between seasoned lifestylers and can more often than not be ascribed to unlucky circumstances. And by far most of them happen during practices or "scenes" well within the boundaries of mainstream BDSM. There is nothing at all to suggest that the absolute lifestyle is more accident prone than any other form of BDSM. If anything, given that the "absolutists" generally tend to "scene" less – indeed make much less use of the "tools of the trade" altogether – than anyone else, the odds for accidents happening are overwhelmingly in the court of the mainstream. "So how would you explain the Goreans?" our critics demand, clearly beyond desperation by now. "Are they not fantasy-based, perhaps?" In a word, no. Contrary to absolute D/s which has no universally defined philosophy or dogma, Gor is a philosophy, a school of thought, first and foremost. There are Goreans across the BDSM spectrum, from the "weekend warriors" to the absolute lifestyle. There are even Gorean purists who point out that Gor has nothing to do with BDSM whatsoever. What makes the Goreans special is that their approach to the lifestyle is founded upon a work of fiction, but in this they are inseparable from any religion you’d care to mention. Since the concepts of morality, higher obligations and honor all come from religion, and since our critics use these in abundance – and rather a lot more than we are wont to do – I consider that they cancel out one another, and the argument can therefore be dismissed. Besides, non-Goreans are often equally inspired by The Story of O, The Marketplace or other similar fiction, which essentially differs from the Gor books only in leaving out the element of science fiction, and in containing much more out-and-out pornography. If the Goreans can be criticized for anything at all with reference to their literary inspiration, it would be that they chose a particularly badly written and perhaps somewhat puerile one. However, that some of them have managed to translate it into a workable absolute lifestyle, proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that they have both proverbial feet solidly planted in reality. It is no secret that I personally have a couple of objections to "standard" Gorean practice. One is the idea advanced by the author of the Gor books that domination is an endemically male characteristic, while submission is endemically female. But many Goreans themselves acknowledge that this contention is demonstrably false, and it is hardly peculiar to Gor in any case. It flourishes in many mainstream BDSM foray, including Powerotics, and its equally ridiculous contrary notion of female supremacy is almost as widespread. My other problem with Gor is the common practice by which slaves refer to themselves in the third person. This is a hindrance to submission of any kind, and most especially of course to the absolute variety. However, it is one of those odd bits of lore like the quotes, "play it again, Sam" or "beam me up, Scotty", neither of which ever actually occur in the film/series to which they are attributed. Nowhere in any of the twenty-odd Gor books does a slave refer to herself in the third person anywhere near consistently. Gor can indeed be fantasy-based, but unlike mainstream BDSM it isn’t intrinsically so. On the contrary, those in the absolute minority who are also Goreans, are typically among the most absolute of all. Many Gorean-trained slaves are very much for real, and in addition they tend to be graceful in movement and speech, honest in their perception of themselves and the world around them, and eminently suited to the absolute lifestyle. If more of the mainstream BDSMers would at least try to emulate Gorean elegance and dignity, if nothing else, then clubs and venues would be far more attractive than they are today. It is rather strange to be called fantasy-based when we are in fact the only dominants and submissives whose master/mistress-slave relationships are truly real in every way and by every definition. It feels rather like I imagine a vampire would feel at a Goth gathering, where everybody wears plastic fangs and drinks tomato juice, and tells him that he can't possibly be for real because his fangs are too sharp and he actually drinks blood. We obviously require no one’s permission or benediction to lead our lives according to our nature. However, at the time of writing there has been no attempt to respond directly in a public forum to these assertions by people who essentially know nothing at all about the absolute lifestyle. Hopefully this essay will have gone some way in setting the record straight.
Sex or Sickness? By J. Mikael Togneri © Seen from the admittedly biased vantage point of the absolute lifestyle, BDSM as a whole has depreciated remarkably over the past twenty or thirty years. It would seem that the downward spiral has finally hit rock bottom, not with a resounding crash, but with a soft, apologetic and nearly inaudible "thud". To hear the "experts" talk about it these days, one is left with the distinct impression that BDSM is either a sexuality or a mental illness. What the mainstream claims about itself is, on the face of it at least, their own business. However, it rubs off unfavorably on the rest of us, and that makes it ours, too. The mainstream BDSM views are extremely well documented in print and on the Internet. Meanwhile, because we do not subscribe to those views, such august on-line institutions as SubNation and Powerotics, among others, have consistently attempted to vilify the absolute lifestyle. Indeed it cannot be denied that when we are confronted with those who apparently dislike us so intensely, we often find ourselves yearning for the open-minded and tolerant warmth of the Iranian Ayatollahs. In order to redress the balance, therefore, here is one "absolutist’s" viewpoint. It has of late become more and more a matter of political correctness to describe our lifestyle as a matter of personal sexuality; something that we do in private whilst in all other contexts we are completely indistinguishable from our non-BDSM surroundings. That contention is of course manifestly absurd. One quite simply cannot build an entire lifestyle around something as relatively superficial as sex. A lifestyle is defined as the manner in which one conducts one’s life. One’s sexuality is therefore a lifestyle choice, a part of a much more comprehensive whole. If BDSM is to be one’s lifestyle, it must encompass rather more than just the way one chooses to seek sexual gratification. It must be the foundation of everything that one does, and everything that one is. It should be borne in mind that the fallacy of BDSM as primarily a sexual pursuit is a relatively newly developed notion, propagated by certain individuals and communities in an effort to mollify our hostile non-BDSM surroundings. Aside from having as much effect as mosquito repellent on a ballistic missile, this "strategy" has also seriously backfired. Thus, when during the latter half of the 1990s mainstream fashion enjoyed a short-lived flirt with fetishist clothing and accessories, the BDSM community was literally overrun by narcissistic posers who really have nothing to do with the lifestyle at all, except that they have adopted our "uniform" and symbols as a matter of fashion trend. The arrival of these people on the scene has further served to cloud the issues, because while they perhaps consider their sexual activities to be very advanced and sufficiently non-conformist to be hip, they hardly qualify as BDSM. Having taken the ball and run with it, it is no mystery that they should endeavor very enthusiastically to maintain the perception of BDSM as something that belongs exclusively within the realm of sexuality. After all, fashion-consciousness indicates a strong desire to be accepted by one’s peers, and whilst dipping one’s toes in the "dark side" is considered adventurous and "in" nowadays, any further and more serious immersion definitely is not. That BDSM naturally attracts self-absorbed hedonists and jaded thrill-seekers should come as no surprise to anyone – this has always been so. However, by creating and perpetuating the misconception of BDSM as kinky sex, those individuals and communities within the lifestyle who do so, have done it untold damage by actively welcoming these undesirables into our midst. Not only have they opened the doors wide for the influx of many people who do not belong here, they have also played right into the hands of those who would persecute us for our alleged perversity and immorality. The religious repressionists among our antagonists would not have had a leg to stand upon, had it not been for this ludicrous distortion of the BDSM lifestyle. Most, if not all, the local and national legislation around the world that would brand BDSM lifestylers as criminals, is based on sexual morality. The American Religious Right, for example, is not exactly renowned for its insistence upon the equality of the sexes and the dignity of woman as an independent human being. To them, the mere fact that she is female automatically makes her a glorified servant. The only objection these people have to BDSM is that they consider it sex, and in this they have received the full support and co-operation of many who call themselves adherents to our lifestyle. This makes for strange bedfellows, of course. Put somewhat crudely perhaps, among the Right Wing Christians it is often a case of wife-beating being perfectly acceptable, except if she gets off on it. Among the radical feminists, by contrast, it goes without saying that wife-beating is entirely unacceptable no matter the circumstances, but to hear them pontificate on the issue one must suspect that it is especially repugnant to them if she gets off on it. What the BDSM-equals-sex crowd don't seem to realize is that while they are being so helpful in putting the Religious Right and the Feminist Movement into bed together, it is the BDSM lifestyle that is ultimately getting screwed. It is indeed very typical that the very same people who first drone on and on about BDSM being kinky sex, are then astonished that professional dominatrixes are routinely and indiscriminately prosecuted on prostitution charges. But you can't have it both ways, can you? If BDSM is nothing but sex, then pro-Dommes are by definition being paid for sexual services. And once again the most effective ammunition in the repressionist arsenal comes from among our own. The wrongful and very hurtful refusal on the part of society to distinguish between sexual kink and sexual crime has not done the lifestyle any favors either. That certain people equate BDSM lifestylers with incestuous, child-molesting, serial killing zoophiles (again, observe the preponderance of sexually oriented terms), is in part caused by the previously mentioned religious reactionaries. (It will be noted that the more puritanical and anti-sexual a person’s morality is, the more dirty-minded and perverse imagination s/he will invariably possess). It is also caused by those criminals who are attracted to BDSM imagery and practice, of course, but it is their psychopathy that distorts the image of BDSM, not BDSM that creates the psychopathy. However, what little has been done to address this issue has been defeated from within the ranks of BDSM itself, by people who have accused others of being criminal or insane, or both, simply for having chosen a different approach than their own. As a result, the lifestyle in North America is under constantly increasing attack by intolerant reactionaries and radical feminists alike, who persecute the true lifestylers for "crimes" they do not commit and would never dream of committing. In Europe, meanwhile, the widespread commercialization of BDSM, of late in conjunction with the said fashion trends, has all but obliterated the true lifestyle venues outright. Even very established and venerable BDSM clubs have degenerated into simple fetish sex-clubs for the young, rich and beautiful. The responsibility for these developments falls squarely upon the collective shoulders of the aforementioned SubNation, Powerotics and their ilk. Even the Old Guard must accept some of the blame. They are not educating the general public; they are merely preaching to the converted. They are not helping to bring about a more tolerant environment; they are feeding the prejudices of our persecutors, and antagonizing the undecided. And they are not even trying to promote tolerance and acceptance within the lifestyle itself; quite on the contrary. It is sometimes said that in terms of social acceptance the BDSM lifestyle is some twenty years behind the gay community, and this has been borne out in most of Europe, at least. The apparent delay in notably the Anglo-Saxon countries is once again due to the influence of those who present BDSM as a sexuality. The reason for which most other Western countries view the lifestyle in a somewhat more tolerant light these days, is that the BDSM communities there have successfully shown that, just like the gay community, ours extends beyond mere sex, and is first and foremost a matter of social and personal identity. So no matter how the mainstream defines what it is that they do, absolute BDSM is neither sex nor sickness, but a complete lifestyle, and arguably the only approach to BDSM that can truly be said to possess that distinction. The absolute BDSM lifestyle is a matter of who and what we are in the universal scheme of things, rather more than what we do and how we do it. We are what we are, and we lead our lives accordingly. We make no apologies, because there is nothing to apologize for. This is our real "crime" in the eyes of our critics: our refusal to jump on the bandwagon of the lowest common denominator. The absolute lifestyle is not intentionally exclusive, but then again it is not particularly inclusive either. To pursue the lowest common denominator is after all to elevate mediocrity to an ideal. There are definite limits to how far one can stretch oneself in order to accommodate just about anyone, without stretching oneself too thin. The more shades of grey one acknowledges in order to ignore the fact that some things actually are black and white, the less definition one can maintain. And absolute dominance and submission is our definition.
Awaiting The One By J. Mikael Togneri © Among the minority within the class of submissives to whom slavehood is a vocation and slavery the ultimate goal, many are happily collared. Many, many more, however, are not. They are still waiting for their One, the master or mistress to whom they can give their lives completely, their submission totally, and their consent unconditionally. Commendable though this patience might be, the waiting can appear more than just a little frustrating at times. What does one do when every fiber of one's being is screaming for submission, while one has not yet found the person to whom such total submission seems right and natural? If you belong in this group, or if you are simply biding your time for any one of many perfectly legitimate reasons, there is in fact something you can do. You can spend the waiting time "preparing" yourself. Note the quotation marks, however. There is a distinction here that is vitally important to make. You are not doing this for "the One to come", you are doing it for you. Why? Because if you do it for "the One to come" you run the very real risk of ending up worshipping an idol of your own creation with which no dominant, no matter how good, stands a snowball's chance in hell of competing. Instead of preparing yourself for "the One to come", consider it improving your own marketability. Most of it is a matter of common sense. You probably already know what dominants generally tend to look for. Some of it you'll have down pat. Ignore that and get the other areas up to specs, then work on improving the whole. Here are some of the things you might look at:
The foregoing may seem exhaustive but it's merely the tip of the iceberg. Think up more things for yourself; that alone is training because creative thinking is valued in a slave. The greatest value of all, however, is you. The point is not to change into someone else, but to become more you. Always keep in mind that you are doing this for yourself. And yet, stay flexible. When you do meet the One, s/he will probably want to change some of the ways you do things. Be ready and able to adjust swiftly.
SUPERFICIAL, SHALLOW By J. Mikael Togneri © No one who has spent five minutes in BDSM will have failed to become acquainted with the concept of SS&C: "Safe, Sane and Consensual". Ostensibly created to instill some sense of responsibility in the wild hordes of callous, bloodthirsty wannabe dominants, it is in reality being used by the politically correct factions within the lifestyle in order to regulate the uncontrollable, and to placate the unappeasable. Needless to say, it has thus far been an abysmal failure on all three counts. And this is a very good thing. On the face of it, given that most of what we do is inherently dangerous, it is of course commendable that the lifestyle be self-regulating, and to what higher goal could any of us aspire, than the beatific trinity of safety, sanity and consent? It also seems quite reasonable to promote the concept beyond the lifestyle, so that those who don’t fully understand what it is that we do, will at least know that we are doing it safely, sanely and consentingly. The trouble is, of course, that the lifestyle has always been self-regulating. The overwhelming majority of BDSM practitioners are sensible, conscientious people to whom safety, sanity and consent are givens. Meanwhile, the very few truly callous, bloodthirsty wannabe dominants, who are neither sensible nor conscientious, are not going to be any more so just because the term "SS&C" shows up in 95% of all BDSM venues and fora. In a similar fashion, those among our non-BDSM surroundings who hate us enough to actively persecute us, don’t listen to anything that comes out of the BDSM community anyway. Their reasons are their own, and nothing we could do or say has any effect on them whatsoever. In short, as far as its stated goals are concerned, SS&C is either redundant or totally ineffectual. Since all of the foregoing would be painfully obvious to any child of three, it must be assumed that those self-styled authorities within our lifestyle who are peddling the slogan, would have found it equally obvious. This, in turn, suggests an altogether different reason for doing so anyway. Despite the fact that the principle of SS&C is totally self-evident across the board, to say "I am for SS&C" is to leave the impression that someone else might actually be against it. It’s a bit like having an organization called "Wives Against Spousal Abuse". It sounds good, and "WASA" has a sort of snappy ring to it. But it doesn’t really say much, because where on Earth would anyone dig up a wife who was in favor of spousal abuse? Now, let’s say that our WASA organization works hard for a few years, gains membership and wealth, and ends up in a position where even the government can no longer ignore it. Votes in the next elections might depend on a politician’s relationship with WASA so to be on the safe side, he publicly supports them and in return they endorse him. So far so good. I mean, if it really does limit spousal abuse, that’s progress, right? But what if WASA then begins to define what constitutes spousal abuse and what does not? What if the government suddenly finds itself under pressure to pass a law according to which merely raising his voice to his wife would land a man with a ten-year prison sentence? Sensible people would of course begin to withdraw their support, and eventually speak out against WASA’s agenda. And the response would naturally be, "well, if you do not agree with Wives Against Spousal Abuse, you must be for spousal abuse." The concept of SS&C not only contains the potential to work in precisely this fashion, but seems to only be used these days to do exactly that. Who, ultimately, gets to define what is within the boundaries of SS&C and what isn’t? "Everyone decides that for him/herself," is the usual response, but that is not borne out by reality. SS&C is in the eyes of the beholder, and if you’re the one being beheld, your interpretation carries no weight whatsoever. Having established that nothing in BDSM is truly safe, and that some people actually do consent to the weirdest things, the whole SS&C concept pivots on that little word "sane". The Oxford Dictionary renders "sane" as "sound of mind; sensible and practical", from a Latin root meaning "clean; pure", as in "sanitation; sanitary". What is so often forgotten when using the words "sane" and "insane" is that they are not psychiatric terms at all, but legal terms – and there is nothing as subjective and debatable as a legal concept. Originally invented by British barristers and subsequently adopted and adapted very successfully by American lawyers, the legal issue of sanity versus insanity simply establishes whether or not the perpetrator was capable at the time the crime was committed of distinguishing between right and wrong. But right and wrong according to whom? Who in this lifestyle has the authority to determine what is right and wrong for anybody else – let alone everybody? So, what the concept of "safe, sane and consensual" in practice boils down to, is this: it is safe if I feel able to take the full consequences; it is sane if I consent to it; I will only consent to what is safe. Conversely, it is unsafe if I could not take the full consequences; it is insane because I do not consent to it; and since I cannot consent to it, others are insane to do so. Or put more simply: SS&C is a means by which I can impose my personal limitations on everybody else. And sure enough, wherever SS&C is promoted it is almost invariably accompanied by a list of practices that are deemed unsafe or insane, whether consensual or not. These practices just happen to coincide with the writer’s own personal squick-threshold, for the most part just about everything that lies beyond common, mainstream BDSM, but which is standard fare in the absolute lifestyle. On the Internet, for example, the SubNation website is a case in point, with page after laborious page on the topic, and the Powerotics website flatly states that sadism is sick. The message is clear: as long as BDSM is just a game we play, everything is fine; but when it gets real, it’s suddenly very wrong. SS&C is nothing more noble than an attempt to regulate the entire lifestyle so that it remains little more than kinky sex. It allows the self-styled BDSM Police to keep peddling their own superficial and shallow approach as the only acceptable way, whilst condemning anyone who disagrees with them. If something isn't safe according to their standards, it cannot be consensual. If it should prove to be consensual nonetheless, it cannot be sane. And if it isn't sane, they feel justified in intervening, and do so by ostracizing those of whose lifestyle they do not approve. People get excluded from various venues, in some cases they are even reported to the authorities (anonymously, of course), their names appear in public on certain websites together with a detailed description of their alleged "crimes", and so on. SS&C has nothing to do with a sound principle that everyone adheres to anyway. Its only practical function is character assassination. To be for SS&C is to be in at least tacit support of witch-hunts against groups and individuals in this lifestyle, with whose practices one does not personally agree.
Absolute Misunderstanding By J. Mikael Togneri © The people, within this lifestyle as well as without, who are critical of the whole "absolutism" thing are legion. They present many reasons for that, and most of them possess perfect validity. The trouble, when discussing it with those who don't just dismiss the notion out of hand, is that, far more often than not, the emphasis is skewed. It seems to me that, no matter where one stands on the issue of absolutism, the problem(s) doesn't (don't) lie with the "absolute" part of the concept, but with the "ism" part. What irks me about people who are perhaps a wee bit quick to embrace my writings about the absolute lifestyle, and maybe also many of those who are equally quick to dismiss them, is that they often miss a crucial point: "absolute" is a *condition*; it is *not* a philosophy with its associated dogma. There is no such thing as "absolutism". "Absolute" is a descriptor. Period. You turn it into a philosophy at your peril. There exists one -- and only one -- criterion for having an absolute power dynamic in a relationship: that it be absolute. It really is that simple. From that point on, everything else flows naturally. (To those who may have a problem with that word, feel free to replace it with "automatically"). Rules, definitions, labels... none of those really matter. It is a defining characteristic of anything absolute that it either is, 100%, or is not at all. No amount of "extras" is going to make it more or less absolute. Anything absolute stands alone, based on its own merits. Absolutism is an easy trap to fall into. Ironically, the chap who has largely been accused of having invented the whole concept in the first place, has himself fallen into it on any number of occasions. It is probably all the easier because the notion of absolutes attracts people who tend to think along fairly rigid lines to begin with. Most people who are attracted to the absolute communities of my acquaintance, at any rate, tend also to be those who believe that one is either Dom, sub or vanilla, and that switches are either confused or lying. I know this, because I used to think so myself. Then reality came along and confused me. In a perfectly reasonable defensive posture, my response was of course to dig in my heels, resulting in an almost fanatical defense of a philosophy that my own writings so often emphasize does not exist, and in which I did not really believe, nor for that matter practiced myself. Mayhem ensued, and absolutism became the cage to end all cages. A popular illustration of enlightenment is the proverbial light bulb coming on above the character's head. Although I am sure that happens every now and again, for the most part I suspect the reality is that the bloody thing is wired to a dimmer and comes on only gradually. The trouble with that, of course, is that one never knows how long this process of brightening light can go on. Once the bulb is lit, however dimly, it becomes impossible to read the print on it, so we really don't know its wattage rating. So does this mean that I'm not an absolutist anymore? Nope! It means that I never was. I believe that there are absolutes in our universe, and I believe that a master/mistress-slave relationship can be one such. However, it is to me a description of the naturally (automatically) evolved relationship. It could never be a relationship *goal*. We can't say "I want an absolute relationship." All we can say is "I want an M/s relationship with such-and-such characteristics", and that may or may not end up being described as absolute. What we want today may not be possible. What we want tomorrow may be very different to what we want today. Once one sets a goal that cannot be flexible (by virtue of being absolute), one puts on a straightjacket of one's own making, and the whole relationship becomes a matter of not being able to see the forest for all the trees. A compatriot of mine called Andersen said that, "to travel is to live." To travel. The process. Not the end destination. The reason for which we cannot decide we want an absolute relationship is that in so doing we define criteria for it, and thereby criteria for what it is to be absolute. But that way lies only trouble, because another defining characteristic of "absolute" is that it be universal and unchanging. That is, what's absolute for you is absolute for everybody else as well. So, if we establish criteria and say any and all relationships that live up to these criteria are absolute, and those that don't, aren't, it all becomes centered on polemic rather than the dynamics themselves, and the important thing in the relationship becomes living up to a set of standards, rather than living in the relationship. Ultimately, we may well only ever know that an M/s relationship was absolute after its demise, regardless of how that comes about. In the meantime, as far as I can see, the only really relevant question to ask about whether or not our dynamic is absolute, is: who cares? Labels and titles are fine when used to describe what we observe. They become cages when used to define what we would like to see. |
