Equality in BDSM

A Transaction Analysis view to discriminate BDSM & Abuse

(I often assume a female submissive and male dominant for convenience and economy of words, however the principles are equally applicable to all players regardless of sex. It is certainly not to be implied that relationship should always be this way. Many couples enjoy occasional reversal of those roles, but the principles remain the same.
BDSM is an acronym encompassing erotic practices that may involve bondage, and the deliberate infliction of pain and/or humiliation.)

Synopsis

This page explores the psychological components of motivation and consent in the context of BDSM play. The discussion employs the models of Transactional Analysis to illustrate the essential requirement of underlying equality of the players to establish whether consent exists or not. It argues an important distinction between abuse and criminal assault which is of particular relevance for those with interests in BDSM.

It argues that consent can only be given in a relationship of mutual equality and respect, it outlines the conditions such a relationship requires and it discusses the inter-dependence of equality, respect and trust.

The characteristics of unhealthy and healthy BDSM relationships are discriminated, and the implications for sexual slavery and deliberately non-consenting relationships are discussed.

It is apparent that a large proportion of the recommendations and play currently found in stories, newsgroups and mailing lists are criminal assault and abusive. It is recommended that those interested take specific steps to ensure that their own activities are mutually beneficial.

Pathology

Noun: pathology

1. The branch of medical science that studies the causes and nature and effects of diseases
2. Any deviation from a healthy or normal condition

Medical practice is based in the premise of pathology – that what is not normal is sick or broken and if possible it should be fixed. This characteristically male approach may be changing, but the idea that what is not 'normal' is somehow wrong is still very pervasive and inhibits understanding of what is happening. This is especially so when we consider the basis of 'normal'.

Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing published Psychopathia Sexualis in 1886 and so coined the terms sadism and masochism. Krafft-Ebing used these terms to describe what he (and many other people) considered to be pathologies - sick behaviour which is inconsistent with healthy interpersonal relationships.

Whether the behaviour of the Marquis deSade actually fitted Krafft-Ebing's definition of sadism, and whether Leopold von Sacher-Masoch was actually a masochist has subsequently been subject to a great deal of dispute, but surely the particular diagnosis of situations long past is of little relevance. Pathological behaviour may be labelled but is not determined by such quirks of history.

That some sexual behaviours are unacceptable is not disputed – many, such as incest and rape, are criminal offences. The issue is: which are healthy and which are not, and it appears that the labelling traditionally provided by the church and the medical profession is not always helpful in this regard.

Mainstream medical science does not teach that we choose our pathologies – rather these are forced on us by fate, either genetics or environment (including accident) or some interaction of those. If I am diagnosed with such a pathology it follows that the outcome is not of my choosing and I am a victim of my circumstances in this regard.

In labelling sexual preferences (whether gender preference, style of play, or any other preference) as a sickness, medical science proclaims this behaviour to have not been voluntarily chosen (as pathologies are not chosen) but to have been imposed by fate.

By the imposition of the label 'pathology' the deviant's behaviour becomes an illness and the result of a quirk of fate (environment and/or genetics) which determines his actions and relieves him of some responsibility for his own choices and behaviour. This is licence without obligation and is not a constructive approach in the absence of identified physical considerations beyond the victim's control.

The falsity of this is illustrated by the common belief that men who commit incest are “abnormal” or “sick”. Only a small percentage of perpetrators have a recognisable mental illness. The “average” offender is likely to be a “normal” married man with a family and a job. He is often well respected in the community and otherwise unidentifiable as an offender. The only common factor which researchers have found is that the overwhelming majority of perpetrators are male.(Source)

The following discussion is based on the premise that all behaviour is motivated, and that while physical conditions (including a mental disorder) may be a component of that motivation, it is necessary to consider the sexual behaviour of people who show no other evidence of physical disablement as being not pathological.

Non-disabled people are considered wholly responsible for their own choice of behaviour, and however distasteful we may find those practices, they do not constitute a pathology nor are they beyond the subject's voluntary control. That is also the usual approach of the court when dealing with matters of abuse and sexual assault.

This argument has been expressed very cogently in the context of the American Psychiatric Association's “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” by Drs Charles Moser and Peggy Kleinplatz, “DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal”.(Source)

On the other hand in the context of intimate relationships there is a great deal of human behaviour which is transparently abusive, and there is at least a superficial case that sexual preferences that involve bondage (deprivation of liberty), striking or hitting, and the deliberate infliction of pain and/or humiliation, demand careful consideration to distinguish them from such abuse.

It is considered unhelpful to muddy the water with argument about whether the behaviour is pathological and thus not wholly responsible. This paper will assume that all relevant behaviour is motivated, that sexual (or other) preference is the deliberate choice of the person so choosing, and that we are all responsible for our own choices in this regard (with exceptions for coercion to be discussed).

Consent and abuse

Another page (Consent) in this series explores the requirements of consent. To avoid duplicating that material this discussion seeks only to define abuse.

A man who finds relief in beating his wife may ask her if she consents. She may reply with a clear “Yes” because she fears the consequences of saying otherwise. He may call himself a dominant, only hit her in 'safe' areas and say the activities are D/s, but that certainly does not mean the relationship is a good one for either of them. This scenario is indifferent from common domestic abuse where frustration is vented on the target least able to defend itself. Few would argue that this is not abuse; it is also a criminal assault.

Changing the labels does not make abuse into something acceptable. If the man described above asks for her consent, her answer is meaningless if she does not have freedom to choose. That freedom is rarely simply a black-and-white issue; her choice is necessarily constrained by some cost of saying “No.” That cost commonly lies somewhere between being less pleasing to her mate than she might wish, and destitution (or perhaps even a worse beating).

Furthermore, her assessment of that cost may be inaccurate. So, while she could say “No” and he be overcome with remorse, and never hit her again; but if she believes that saying “No” would cost her dearly, then her answer is strongly coerced by that belief, however wrong it may be. It is immaterial that the facts are different or misunderstood. What matters is what she believes.

So, the criterion for abuse, becomes very subjective - it turns on what the submissive believes to be the case. This is a crucial point as the specific activity becomes relatively unimportant. It is not the action that makes it abuse – it is the way the context of that action is understood. Moser and Kleinplatz make the same observation “...empirically based, scientific definitions of healthy and pathological sexual behaviour continue to elude us.”

Attempts to define abuse by classifying some activities as being unacceptable will inevitably fail as almost any activity can become abusive if it is engaged in a way that is offensive to the 'victim' and without regard for the victim's feelings. The corollary argument, that behaviours which are not so excluded are therefore acceptable, is also equally flawed as there is a continuum of variation and no criterion to discriminate.

Proscribing specific behaviours is the approach of the criminal law in most jurisdictions. Criminal assault has been described as: “Any willful attempt or threat to inflict injury upon the person of another, coupled with an apparent present ability to do so.” Such an approach feeds police and lawyers but doesn't prevent abuse. Criminal assault cannot be consented to, so there is no need to explore that issue for the purpose of a criminal prosecution.

A basis to discriminate

The language of Transactional Analysis conceived by the psychotherapist Eric Berne provides us with some very useful models to understand what is happening in BDSM play and to assist in making the important distinction between healthy play and criminal abuse.

Parent - Adult - Child model Transactional analysis conceives each person as having three fairly distinct personality modes or 'ego-states'. These are the Parent, the Adult and the Child. All of us have all three of these, and at any particular time we may exhibit behaviours from one or more of them. The notation usually employs a capital letter to show ego states and to distinguish them from physical persons.

Behaviours characteristic of the Parent ego-state include supporting religious, community and social values, taking responsibility for others, and taking care of those who need it. Authoritative and officious behaviour is also characteristic of the Parent.

The Adult ego-state is characterised by rational and thoughtful actions based on gathering and using appropriate information. The Adult negotiates, distinguishes what is valuable and important and why. It resists impulse, prejudice, blame, guilt, intolerance and discrimination.

The Child is easy to imagine in this context as impulsive, curious and with a sense of adventure and discovery. The Child ego-state is our hedonist streak – going along for the ride, content to avoid the serious business, submissive and accepting of (not necessarily deferring to) other's authority.

Transactional analysis was described by the originator Eric Berne MD in “Games People Play” (Andre Deutsch, U.K., 1966) and popularised in the book “I'm OK-Your'e OK” by Thomas A. Harris, (Avon Books, 1976). Adult - Adult dialogue Simple relationships between any two people may be seen as being transacted on a complementary basis: thus if two equals are negotiating a deal that is an Adult–Adult transaction; and if a foreman is issuing orders to an operator the foreman operates through his Parent ego-state while the operator accepts a submissive or Child stance, that is a Parent–Child transaction.

Parent - Child dialogue There is no suggestion that the foreman's Parent is any more than a momentary relationship state, and likewise the Child state of the operator; but an observer may readily observe the relatively authoritative words and body language of the foreman, and the receptive disposition of the operator. A moment later they may be discussing their involvement in the local bowls club as equals, or if the operator happens to be the current club president the ego states may be reversed with the operator adopting an Adult and the foreman a Child position.

Ego states in Berne's Transaction Analysis model are ephemeral, reflecting the nature of the exchange (transaction) being made between the parties at the time, and sometimes in contrast to their underlying psychological relationships.

Balanced transactions have an appropriate ego-state on each side of the relationship. Thus if one is Adult then it is appropriate that the other should too, and if one is Parent then the other is usually Child. If the other party responds appropriately to the position we adopt then it is likely our communications will be correctly understood and the transaction will meet the expectations of both sides.

Sometimes inappropriate ego-states are adopted – thus if the operator were to try to forcefully tell the foreman why he was wrong then both would be seeking to adopt the Parent, and neither would be hearing or accepting the communications of the other – we would usually call that an argument or a fight. Occasionally two people will both try to avoid responsibility for a decision by each deferring to the other – while both occupy the Child state no decision can be made. One of them must move to either a Parent or Adult ego state and take responsibility.

Often transactions are complicated by what Berne called 'games'. These are not sport or play, they are strategies to achieve hidden or covert objectives. Thus a transaction between two people may appear to be a simple Adult–Adult conversation but the strategy adopted by one party may be to subtly put the other down and there is a sub-plot or covert transaction of a Parent–Child nature. Berne identified many common game strategies that people employ in ordinary social relationships.

Games are not pathologies but are simply a means to recognise that a transaction is often not adequately described by a simple superficial interpretation. The motivational strategies (often expressed in body language) must also be understood in order to understand the whole transaction taking place. It is usually the case that the overt (clearly visible acts and audible words) transaction is a mask to disguise the covert (subtle or hidden strategy) transaction, and that the covert is the real motivator.

BDSM

A BDSM relationship usually involves two people, a dominant (or Dom, Domme, top, Master, etc.) and a submissive (sub, bottom, slave, etc.) and activities (service, sexual use, bondage, flogging, etc.) in which the subservience of the submissive is particularly emphasised. The BDSM relationship is characterised by inequality, in which the dominant dominates and the submissive submits. This imbalance is often spoken of as a gift, the gift of submission, recognising that the power exchange is a free choice of the submissive.

Dominant - submissive model A power exchange relationship in which a submissive surrenders some (and perhaps a great deal of) power to her lover may be seen as a combination of a covert and an overt transaction.

The overt is a Parent–Child transaction in which the dominant adopts an authoritative role and the submissive accepts that dominance. The overt displays of BDSM may include restraining the submissive, spanking or flogging, humiliation and an infinite variety of other subjugations all intended to emphasise the dominance of the dominant and the submission of the submissive.

If that were all that happened, then the diagnosis of Krafft-Ebing that one is a sadist and the other a masochist would appear consistent. The question of whether this was abusive would remain unanswered except by the arbitrary (and widely disputed) definitions chosen. However, in healthy BDSM there is much more happening.

The BDSM relationship is commonly expected by the parties to be safe, sane and consensual (SSC) – this being something of a mantra among players at BDSM. The submissive's compliance (the consent at the heart of SSC) is often seen and spoken of as a gift. In this context submission is something the submissive willingly gives to the relationship, an offering she makes in the expectation that the dominant will take and use it. Healthy submission is willing consent expressed as compliance within the limits of that consent.

Consent

The essential component here is that the compliance is voluntarily offered and that it might equally easily have been withheld. This is the meaning of the requirement for consensuality. There is no consent if compliance is coerced or constrained. Neither is 'reluctant acquiescence consent; such reluctance is clear evidence of significant costs of (or penalties for) refusal beyond the activities refused, and that is coercion. (A more detailed discussion may be found on my page Consent.)

If a dominant shows his obvious expectation that she will comply or suggests that compliance is the requirement to prove that she really loves him – this is coercion. If compliance is sought with the bait of additional favours, if he offers or promises something in exchange, or if he may withdraw expected favours if she declines, these situations are coercive. That the coercion is on a modest scale may make it less threatening, but not free. Free choice is unconstrained with nothing more at stake than what is refused.

Bullying and threats disqualify any appearance of consent they extract, but coercion may be very subtle, even subliminal to the parties. Economic dependence, or the desire to please because she feels it is her duty to please him, may disqualify her consent. Her consent is not freely given if she does not feel equally free to decline. The sense of duty or obligation, of dependence, of inferiority, of gratitude, of worship or disproportionate respect (compared to herself), and the need to earn or keep the allegiance of the dominant – these are all conditions that tend to disqualify consent by reducing the submissive's freedom to decline.

Consent may still be given in these circumstances; the criterion of validity is that the choice was free – that she had equal opportunity to decline. She must be confident that she can decline without losing more than what is refused. She will of course lose the opportunity for this experience if she declines, but her reasons for doing so are that the net benefits to her do not exceed the associated costs (whatever they may be) in the present circumstances.

If her partner does anything to unbalance that choice in a way that he prefers, that is coercion and the choice is not free.

Equality

That freedom requires a relationship of equals. Your consent depends on your view of the situation and while I believe that my view (my truth) is superior or “better balanced” or otherwise more rational (because it always is – to me) I will feel it appropriate to influence your view in the direction of my truth. This is always coercive.

It may be quite slight or it may be severe – I cannot tell because, however severe, it is consistent with my truth and it seems appropriate to me. The severity of my force is something only my submissive can assess, and if she believes that she is less competent or has other feelings that incline her to dismiss her own truth, she will be equally unable to recognise the coercion applied.

The only guarantee against such coercive force is a relationship in which both parties see themselves as equal to the other, with equally valid views of what is true and what is important to themselves.

This does not require that they are of equal ability in any particular respect, only that they each respect the other as a person of equal worth.

When confronted with the requirement of underlying equality many submissives (and often their dominants too) will vigorously argue that they are not equal, and cite obvious differences between herself and her man.

Equal does not mean identical – clearly people of opposite sex are not identical. It does not mean equally strong, or learned, or wealthy, or old, or anything in particular; but requires the parties see each other as equal contributors to a mutual relationship and of equal value in that relationship, and thus making equally important contributions to the success of the relationship.

The covert transaction

“Equal” is also the essential nature of an Adult–Adult transaction. Clearly negotiation cannot take place between a dominant and a submissive as they fill those roles (for many, a submissive may not even speak except when instructed to) and consent in such a relationship is meaningless as the coercive unbalance does not leave the submissive free to decline. The Parent instructs and the Child complies - this is not and cannot be consent.

While Parent and Child are the overt transactional roles of the BDSM relationship, negotiation and consent are an essential covert Adult–Adult transaction made between the parties as equals.

Covert does not mean secret, but hidden or simply not apparent within the context of the BDSM scene. The Adult–Adult negotiation and consent take place prior to the play, sometimes long before (perhaps days or months). The Adult–Adult transaction is covert because it is not visible or apparent during the scene, but it is no less important for that.

Consent thus depends on an underlying sense of equality between the parties which will not be apparent in the scene, and that consent is not validly given unless it is negotiated in an Adult–Adult transaction between equal partners. Ultimately that qualification (that valid consent has been given) can only be determined by the submissive on thoughtful reflection and consideration. It is not common that this occurs.

It is common that submissives assert and defend the essential inequality of their relationship. If this is as claimed, there is arguably no valid consent in such a relationship and it is indiscriminable from garden variety domestic abuse. BDSM in this context is a crime of assault, not peculiar to BDSM by any means, and merely reciting the mantra of SSC does not avoid it.

Of course while the submissive does not regard it as an assault she will not press charges and the crime will most likely remain unexposed. However she may change her mind in that regard at any time – including retrospectively.

The best protection available to a dominant is to ensure that valid consent is obtained (and continued) in an Adult–Adult transaction between equal partners.

Trust

Many couples seek a relationship of trust together. That trust is only developed over time as each of us becomes more confident that the other will show appropriate care and regard for our interests. We may allow ourselves to be progressively more exposed as we become progressively more confident that our exposure will not lead to abuse or serious loss, that we will in fact be protected by our partner (even though that may be contrived to appear unlikely – the nature of BDSM is to test and prove that trust).

The confidence I have, that you will defend and protect me when I am most exposed, is necessary for me to willingly endure that exposure. That confidence springs only from previous experience and my belief that (in spite of present appearances) secretly you care deeply for me, and you value me as much as you value yourself. In short that you respect me as an equal in our relationship of equals.

That trust thus requires an underlying equality and relationships which do not have that equality cannot have a sound or healthy basis for trust. Traditionally we may have used the word love to describe relationships that contain this unqualified respect for the other. Perls called it “Unconditional Positive Regard”. The ancient Greeks seem to have been more discriminating and had a very specific word usually rendered 'agape' with this meaning. The psychological function is just as important today.

A small proportion of females appear to seek and enjoy a short term and superficial BDSM relationship. This simply shows that it takes all types to make a world. Some BDSM play requires very little trust. This is particularly so at 'play parties' where the play is likely to be overseen by uninvolved spectators and breach of the expectations or limits imposed by the submissive is fairly unlikely.

These superficial relationships still have the covert Adult–Adult transaction controlling the outcomes and a superficial Adult-Child exchange as the basis of play. A high standard of trust is not required if adequate other safeguards are in place.

Unhealthy Relationships

Certainly some relationships do not have an underlying sense of equality. Co-dependence or other-validation is a common social problem in which a party may seek their reasons for living in the behaviour and responses of another. This is illustrated by a BDSM relationship in which the submissive seeks her fulfilment in the pleasure of her idolised master. It is doubtful whether this is trust so much as self-abandonment.

Many women wish for a handsome prince to come and rescue them from the drudgery of their lives – these Cinderellas invariably find that the man they initially thought to be a handsome prince is a actually a tyrant and often worse than the wicked stepmother. Cinderella may have thrown herself into his arms with an abandonment to what she called trust, but the key word is 'abandonment' as her trust was not sensibly assessed and was not justified.

Many men, seeking only a superficial relationship which meets their own sexual and fantasy needs, will attract such women and together they may plunge into BDSM, quickly adopting a posture as serious players with “24/7 commitment to the lifestyle” and sometimes decrying words of caution. These relationships lack the covert Adult–Adult transaction of equality.

The men generally enjoy these liaisons, and initially so do the women who tend to live a fantasy existence. However, the women – commonly treated as slaves and often called that – are ultimately wasted and must be replaced. While this certainly often occurs among proponents of BDSM it need not, and is not intrinsic to BDSM. The problem is opportunism combined with co-dependence and lack of a stable personal identity, and is equally common in 'vanilla' (non-BDSM) relationships.

Most observers would agree that these relationships are unhealthy (many would label them pathological) as they usually have serious negative impacts on one or both participants. It is argued that the absence of the covert Adult–Adult transaction of equality is the key distinction.

It is regrettable that some criminal trials have attracted publicity on the basis that the accused played with BDSM when the substance of the issue is not about BDSM at all. For instance, John E Robinson was self-styled “slavemaster”, but he was just a serial killer. There is no more reason to associate his murders with BDSM than there is with motels – he used them too. It was not his use of motels that made his behaviour unacceptable; but rather the nature of his relationships. There was no covert Adult–Adult transaction of equality.

Change of Mind and Consensual Non-consent

Consent is to particular activities. It is common that these activities are at least generally identified, although the specifics will usually contain surprises for the submissive. Consent may accommodate this element of surprise. The parties may also provide for a safe-word, for use when either party feels the scope of consent is being breached and the utterance of which will bring all activities to an immediate halt and start damage control.

The first word of SSC – Safe – is often taken to require the agreement of and respect for a suitable safeword, and that depends on the covert Adult–Adult transaction by which it is established. Again this is not ordinarily apparent in the context of the scene but it is no less critical to ensure that the relationship is not abusive.

Use of a safeword is tantamount to withdrawal of consent and may be used because the submissive is simply not enjoying the experience – not necessarily reflecting any breach of the previously offered consent.

Again, the freedom to use a safeword requires that the submissive does not feel coerced, and that the loss to be incurred by doing so is no greater than the activities refused. Again this depends on the underlying Adult–Adult covert transaction, and exercise of the safeword is an exercise of that transaction within the scene. If the covert Adult–Adult transaction between equals has not occurred or is not respected by the dominant the safeword may also not be given credibility or respected.

Some proponents of BDSM seek to explore very severe relationships, seeking contracts that are effectively binding, to deny the submissive any way out, 24/7 contracts of slavery. The choice of such an arrangement must be clearly a choice and if freely made between adult equals it is arguably not abusive.

The idea of consensual non-consent – that the submissive may consent to anything, including activities to which she would not voluntarily consent, is a contradiction in terms. There is no consent without adequate knowledge. The legal concept of “informed consent” is valuable in this context – the party consenting must have enough knowledge to be able to choose. In the absence of adequate knowledge there can be no rational choice and thus no consent. The issue of adequacy of the knowledge turns on the specific consent that is being granted. (This is discussed in more detail on the page Consent.)

Sexual slavery may be a hot fantasy but the reality is that the parties remain in such an arrangement only as long as they wish to do so, and the submissive's freedom to leave at any time is protected by law. A dominant who fails to recognise this is very likely to be guilty of a crime of imprisonment as well as assault.

For some, the play activities are so real that they deny the out-of-scene transaction exists - for them the role play seems to be the only transaction and, in that, consent may be irrelevant. The failure of either party to recognise the importance of the covert transaction does not affect its significance. Neither does it become absent because it is denied; the writer has observed several situations where, notwithstanding their public claims, the parties have clearly respected their (denied) covert transaction.

Edgeplay and non-consent

A relationship may explore elements of BDSM without the submissive having given a valid consent, and while it may technically be regarded as a criminal assault, that does not necessarily make it abusive. A submissive may say “I don't know” when asked about some activity and there may be an agreement to experiment, without her having enough information or experience to give her informed consent. The subsequent play might explore that activity with particular sensitivity for her feelings and responses - that is scarcely abusive.

Similarly, consent may be freely given for play within clearly identified limits and the dominant may then choose to gently challenge those limits in what is often called 'edge play'. Many folk find the erotic elements of such play to be extremely exciting and that it subsequently results in the submissive redefining the limits of fear and self-acceptance. This is generally regarded as a highly beneficial experience, expanding our sense of freedom to choose.

Notwithstanding the benefits of such play, it was not consented to. That does not make it abusive. Edge play deliberately and sensitively undertaken need not be without regard for the feelings and reactions of the submissive – it may be considerate and respectful, it may acknowledge the covert Adult–Adult transaction on which the play is based and consciously explore the edges of that transaction. This is not abuse.

It has been pointed out that this opinion conflicts with conclusions drawn above that the absence of consent makes play abusive. The apparent conflict turns on the presumption that consent is a simple black-and-white issue. It is not. Informed consent may include this exploration beyond limits (what some people call soft limits), but how far becomes a vague and subjective issue. Consideration and respect are the critical points.

The requirement for consent is thus argued to be less important than acknowledgement of the covert transaction that should underpin the BDSM relationship. Meaningful and current consent is sufficient to ensure the activities are not abuse, but it is not necessary. Full respect for a (covert) Adult–Adult transaction which sets the context of consent and acceptable play is both necessary and sufficient.

Choice or Non-choice

It is the view of some that submission is a personality characteristic – something which is part of the submissive's inheritance (perhaps even genetic determinant) and that such a submissive will only be happy in a D/s relationship. This is coherent with the view of Krafft-Ebbing that sexual deviance is an illness that may potentially be fixed – it denies the submissive's responsibility for her own choices.

This has strong appeal to those (women in particular) who seek the Cinderella solution - to be rescued from their situation by a strong man who will relieve them of their responsibility for their own outcomes. Unfortunately there are plenty of men who are all too eager to take the role of dominant rescuer. Of course, like any co-dependent relationship, the end is disaster for both – usually sooner than later.

Such abdication of responsibility may appear to be consenting and serves to illustrate that consent is not sufficient to ensure a successful BDSM relationship.

The Cinderella position contrasts with a view held by many submissives that their submission cannot be bartered, brought or sold but only freely given. In order to be given, such submission must be equally able to be withheld. That requires an out-of-scene context underpinning the play, and that context includes a standing as equals.

Sexual slavery

Of course some real-world sexual slavery relationships are coercive, and the submissive is truly bound by the physical strength or other coercive powers of the dominant. Such constraint is illegal and is defined as criminal in most western jurisdictions. Prosecution of such crimes is not uncommon, and sentences are severe. The protection of the law, however, is of little value to a corpse and it will not undo the damage a submissive may suffer in such a relationship. Great caution should be exercised by submissives who contemplate such relationships.

A submissive may choose to remain in any situation by her own free choice and thus to offer her partner the same degree of submission as that of slavery, but the requirement of free choice to enter, to stay, and to leave at any time, must remain if the danger of abusive or criminal behaviour is to be avoided. This can only be ensured when the relationship is based on a covert Adult–Adult transaction between equals and which is recognised and acknowledged by both parties.

Is it Abusive?

Consent, discussed above, turns on the required Adult–Adult transaction (however distant or covert) between the parties.

Submissives wondering if their relationship is abusive are encouraged to consider whether their consent is truly free and offered as an Adult–Adult transaction between parties who both treat themselves and the other as equals. Ultimately that qualification can probably only be determined by the submissive on thoughtful reflection and consideration.

In the absence of such consent the activities are probably abusive. Such activities are a danger to both players.

Unfortunately it appears that relatively few, even among those who consider themselves experienced in this field, recognise the importance of the covert Adult–Adult transaction. While many players fail to recognise the need for an underlying relationship of equality, abuse is likely to be common.

Some dominants argue that submission is an intrinsic personality characteristic and that the covert transaction is unimportant. These dominants are abusive. It is regrettable that these men often seem unable to recognise this and only the impact of law enforcement will dissuade them. Such law enforcement has put BDSM generally into an unfavourable light, to the considerable disadvantage of all those who might benefit from it.

Positive Benefits

This page is not intended to extol BDSM or Erotic Power Exchange; there are other pages to do this. It is worth noting however that many who practice these activities report large positive benefits.

These include (amongst many others):

A profound experience of mutual intimacy which comes only from the surrender of self to another;
A personal perspective encompassing sexuality, pain and pleasure as an integrated experience of life;
Experiences of intense sexual ecstasy;
The discovery and experience of fear (in many forms) as a manageable emotion;
The surrender of some inhibitions (decontamination of the Adult by the Parent);
A sense of wellness and completeness;
A confident sense of self and of life purpose (this could be a necessary precondition of success rather than an outcome).

It is suggested that an activity which is freely chosen for the substantial and valuable benefits it provides should not be regarded as a pathology. That some seek to label this as unhealthy is difficult to understand. Discriminating closely related activities which are agreed to be unhealthy will perhaps assist in making an important discrimination.

Conclusion

When a submissive consents, rational logic suggests she does so because this provides perceived net benefits: and the value of the benefits to the submissive exceeds the costs. It is self-interest which drives this transaction. This is, and must be, an Adult–Adult transaction.

The activities of BDSM play however are not Adult–Adult. The D/s relationship is an extreme form of Parent-Child transaction in which the dominant role is authoritarian Parent behaviour and the submissive is the existential Child. These play activities are not an equal transaction at all - they are grossly unbalanced.

If the unbalanced overt transaction is all that exists between the players then the activities are apparently abusive and (in most jurisdictions) a criminal assault. The covert Adult-Adult transaction is argued to be a necessary and sufficient condition to avoid the risk of abuse. Authorities enforcing the law should also be able to make this discrimination and often seek to.

Failure to recognise the importance of the covert transaction places people at psychological and physical risk.

Full respect for the covert Adult-Adult transaction enables BDSM to be explored safely and to the very substantial mutual benefit and enjoyment of both players.

Peter Hoban

Original: December ‘03
Edited: February ‘04
This page is part of “Living in the Light”
found at: http://www.tassie.net.au/~phoban/

Finding focus Understanding motivation Religion & faith Sexuality Families Front page