“What do you think?”
Late afternoon on a sodden November day. The weak light steps aside for evening, and a reflection slowly emerges in the office window: a woman, seated on the sofa, attired in a dark business suit, pale stockings, high heeled shoes, hands resting on an open book balanced in her lap. I cannot see her face because she has no head. Her image has been guillotined at the throat by a venetian blind.
Apt metaphor, I thought, as I turned away from my reflection in the glass and looked at the woman sitting across from me. A mother of ten and grandmother of many more, she was wise, calm, and looked like a woman half her age. I owed a great deal to this woman, my therapist, who guided me as I grappled with the abuse of my childhood. She had taught me that the memory of betrayal, pain and fury were not neatly stored in the brain, but written in flesh, soft tissue and bone. And with her help I hoped to reconnect my head to my body.
We had spent the session discussing sexual fantasies, the fantasies and writings of other women because I was too uncomfortable to speak directly of my own fantasies. The fantasies I questioned came from the book I held in my lap, Erotica: Women’s Writing from Sappho to Margaret Atwood. In that volume I found the bloody prose of Angela Carter, a gang rape scene described by Pat Califia, and the veiled sexuality in Christine de Pazan’s account of the torture and martyrdom of virgins, whose resilience left their executioners weak and exhausted.
I never told anyone that these scenes — violent, intense, bloody, degraded — were what took me to the edge in a way no lover ever did. I assumed they were the remnants of the abuse, so that no matter what I had accomplished in my career, no matter how polished my appearance, the damage, the humiliation would always be there.
But when I found images that resembled my own fantasies in the stories and poems written by women, including some who were avowed feminists, I found the courage to ask my therapist the questions I had been avoiding. Was it possible that so many writers experienced abuse, the germinating seed for these violent images? She assured me that men and women who had never experienced any form of abuse fantasized about rape, bondage, and blood play. The images of violence, force or humiliation were not markers for abuse, whether experienced in childhood or adulthood.
Even if these disturbing images could be considered normal, why did they appear in stories and poems authored by women who were reputed to be feminists? She replied that this question of sexual fantasies, fantasies of dominance, submission, and sado-masochism, was the cause of an angry debate among feminists. Some believed that these fantasies were the result of the oppression of women, and even if a woman did not personally experience sexual or physical abuse, violence and degradation were so prevalent in our culture that these images were inescapable. To eliminate this violence and cruelty, women and men must consciously seek to eradicate their own dark urges, including the expression of these desires in art, fiction and cinema. Other feminists argued that the need for violence, blood, dominance or submission was hard-wired at birth. It was part of human nature.
Then I asked, “Is it possible to change such violent desires, to make them politically correct? What do you think?” She did not answer immediately, but looked directly in my eyes and said, “No, the desires, the fantasies are what they are. They cannot be changed. What you can change is how you choose to express these desires.”
And with those words I began to reconnect my head to my body.
Ten years later, I remembered that conversation when I encountered the work of another woman, a psychiatrist who is also a sexual submissive. She writes under the name of Yaldah Tovah, which in Hebrew means “good girl.” Based on her own experience and those of her analysands who are sexually submissive, Tovah has written several essays on the psychological profiles of submissive women, differentiating those who are psychologically healthy from those suffering from personality disorders.
A common dilemma for a person who is submissive or dominant is finding a partner who understands and can complement one’s sexual nature. Many people have not even recognized their proclivities as valid, but believed that these urges to dominate or be dominated were unhealthy, peculiar and thus tried to ignore or override them. The end result was often a long-time relationship with a man or woman who could not understand or accept his/her partner’s true sexual needs.
For the man or woman who is fortunate to know and accept the validity of his/her need to dominate or submit, the challenge is finding a partner who is honest about his/her own desires. Today, there is an abundance of information describing BDSM lifestyles. In some circles, dark sexuality is not merely accepted; it has become fashionable. Kink has become trendy and, some people will claim they are dominant or submissive to appear more sexually adventurous. But their performance, and it is only performance, cannot maintain or endure the delicate balance of power, fear and arousal. And so the genuinely dominant or submissive partner feels cheated and frustrated.
How then can a man or woman determine if a partner is truly dominant or submissive? Tovah claims that the answer lies in what she terms “signal fantasies.”
In contemplating early roots of “kink” I have come to consider the role of early sexual fantasies, and their significance.
I believe that some people have particular kinds of sexual fantasies that hold enormous power to shape not only their sexuality, but also their lives. I call these fantasies “signal fantasies” because they call attention to an overriding psychosexual need, which can be so determinative of behavior that they define identities and shape lives.
Fantasies such as these are typically masturbatory, begin very early in childhood, as young as 3 or 4 years of age for some, remain fairly fixed over a lifetime, and are the “efficient” fantasies, the reliable ones, the ones that bring its creator to climax more quickly than any others.The body doesn’t lie
.
These fantasies are the ones that get a person who has them reliably wet, reliably hard, every time. They are the fantasies that play in the mind during sexual activities too far afield from them to be satisfyingly arousing. These are the fantasies that when encountered in literature, in the movies, online for the first time, shock the person who is unfamiliar with the power they hold, and usually disturb the person to some degree with that power…The earlier these fantasies appear, and the more reliable and efficient they are, the more they have been fixed over a lifetime, the greater the degree of necessity to live them out for real satisfaction. Those people with the earliest, most fixed, most intransigent signal fantasies can be considered to be “hard-wired” for the behavior.
You can read her entire essay, “The Significance of Fantasies,” here.
According to Tovah, if a person is “hard-wired,” i.e., if her fantasies arose early in childhood, she must determine where her potential partner’s desires are on the spectrum of dominance/submission, hetero/homosexuality, or sado-masochism:
A hard-wired female submissive will never be truly happy with a non-Dominant man. To put it simply, we love differently. A gentle, non-Dominant passive man will never be able to keep a profound submissive happy. His gentle, giving, passive lovemaking will leave her to turn to her fantasies of force, authority, bondage, and pain to carry her through her their sexual acts.
Is this true? Can we see beyond the defenses we constructed out of shame and timidity throughout our lives and look back to childhood to see our true sexual nature? Based on my own experience, I would say yes. Would I choose the same lovers or partners if I did not suppress my need for sexual submission and ravishment? Probably not. This is not to say that there was no sexual attraction, or that these men did not possessed other excellent qualities. It was unfair to pretend to be what I was not to avoid ridicule. Unfair to them and to me.
Other men and women have also claimed that their desires for pain, spanking, etc. have remained unchanged from their childhood years. In a discussion forum, one woman gave this description of her earliest fantasies:
Let me preface this by saying I’m not a crackpot or a co-dependent kook. I’m a married professional woman in my late-30’s with a life-long spanking fetish. The earliest spanking fantasies I can remember occurred when I was around six. I remember thinking how much I would fancy being spanked by David Brinkley. Go figure.
According to Tovah, the games children play are often stagings of these signal fantasies.
Some young submissives play “house” in which they manage to get themselves spanked by baby Dominants. Some children are insistent on playing “cowboys and Indians” because of the tying up part of the game. Others, bold little creatures, are determined to find playmates for a game of “Master and slave.”
There are often feelings of guilt and shame about feelings that differ so widely from what the child observes around him. In an article at the Taken In Hand site, one man described a childhood game that revealed his true sexual nature, as well as his fear and confusion about his sexual arousal:
When I was a young teen (not sure exactly how old, about 13 I think), a fairly attractive girl was at our house one day. She was slightly younger than me, and frankly, not that interesting to me. Being bored, and looking for something to do, we played various games, one of which was to see if we could do a Houdini and escape from being tied up (with an old necktie, of all things). I quickly realized that being tied up was something I really hated, and was soon free – probably from the sheer adrenaline of the mild state of panic being so helpless put me in.
But then it was her turn. As soon as I tied her up, I found myself incredibly turned on by the exchange of power. I didn’t understand why I felt that way, or why it scared me so, and so I forgot about the whole thing. For a few years.
There are some who believe that, with patience, dominance or submission can be learned. I disagree, with one exception which should be the topic of a separate post. Unless one is awakening a sexual nature that has been buried for so long, what a person will learn is ritual or protocol. His/her performance will lack intensity, the same quality that makes vanilla sex memorable. IMO, the intensity of BDSM is derived from the eroticism of power, which can be expressed sexually or nonsexually. Difficult to fake on a consistent basis. Far better to be an intense vanilla, than a poor imitation dominant.
And if you are in doubt, could there be a more reliable litmus test than this?
The body doesn’t lie…Overpower a submissive, or set her to service, and she will be wet. Present a submissive posture to a Dominant, and he will get hard.
Submitted by 1742 (not verified) on Sat, 2007-11-10 14:37.
This post spoke to my own situation in a profound way. I can't really express what it meant to me. All I can say is Thank You.
[You are most welcome, Bunny. This is why I place a high value upon sexblogs and wish they were in existence when I was a young adult. When we have commitments and responsibilities that require us to stay with partners who do not understand -- or worse, do not try to understand -- our sexual needs, there is little comfort to be found except in the company of those who crossed that same barren land. Thank you. -- Kochanie]
Submitted by 1742 (not verified) on Sat, 2007-11-10 14:55.
This was interesting. It answered some questions I have raised recently with two Doms. My first inclination has always been to say, "I'm not a sub, but I don't mind playing a bit with it." Many questions have been asked, trying to understand why/what constitutes a sub's nature, why they need to do it; probing at myself to see if maybe I might really deep down be able to be a sub. Just wondering as I explore my own sexual nature.
But by reading here one has the straight forward and simple answer. Recalling the feelings of my body, knowing now it holds the answer, I now know it is telling me what I intellectually was reciting - "I'm not a sub. But I don't mind playing the role a bit, just for the fun, for the exploration."
It feels good to have the questions answered.
[Unless a person has repressed his or her desires to the point that they cannot be recognized consciously, I think the signal fantasies can serve as a reliable means of identifying one's sexual nature. One of the other commenters, Lynn Gazis-Sax, said, "Dominant/submissive is sort of a continuum...", and I agree with her. Knowing that you *like* to explore is very different from concluding that you cannot be satisfied any other way. So Tovah's litmus test may prevent a person from giving in to pressures from an overzealous dominant or submissive partner.
I also think that *how* we decide to express our desires is the result not only of the wiring, but our upbringing, environment and sexual experiences, both good and bad. Thank you. Rosie. -- Kochanie]
Submitted by 1742 (not verified) on Sat, 2007-11-10 16:18.
I've heard so many stories like these, it's important to have them out there so that people can see and understand that it's okay to be into bondage, SM, and the rest. So many people assume that BDSM is a symptom of being damaged, but in fact for many people the damage is done by being kinky and the rest of the world saying it is not okay to be.
I agree with Rosie: for some people (myself included) a D/s or SM orientation is hard-wired; but for others it is just something fun to do. In fact, I think I'm hard-wired Dom, but also "fun-to-do" sub.
[" In fact, I think I'm hard-wired Dom, but also "fun-to-do" sub." To some, that may sound like an unemotional, forthright statement, but I would not be surprised if you paid a high price for that self-knowledge. Writing that questions not only what is *normal* but what is *normal kink* is invaluable for our own self-knowledge and as a guide for others. Thank you, SnowdropExplodes, and please keep writing. -- Kochanie]
Submitted by 1742 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-11-11 00:51.
A common dilemma for a person who is submissive or dominant is finding a partner who understands and can complement one's sexual nature.
Dominant/submissive is sort of a continuum, though; I think it explains even for us "vanilla" folks why we find certain things attractive and unattractive. At least, there's something about certain kinds of woman submissive scenarios that really don't work for me, in regular old vanilla stuff like romance novels. And I can't explain why, exactly. It's not a political thing; it's pre-political, and I felt that way even as a young teenager. But I don't think I'm dominant, or need men to be submissive, or against any kind of feminine yielding at all ever (even for myself - some kinds of letting the other person take the lead some of the time can be very sexy), and I certainly don't think I'm especially attracted to passive men. And I'm happy to wait on my husband in minor ways (fetching him water, giving him footrubs, that sort of thing).
I just know that lots of stuff that other people say is sexy, or that some article or other will claim women in general are supposed to like, isn't sexy to me, and for me it's usually particular sorts of things that feel too submissive. Or maybe certain ways of being submissive? If I have any inner submissive, she's at odds with all the submissive romance novel scenes I've read and all the woman submissive type porn ads I've seen (whether they're actually suggesting BDSM or whether they're supposed to be vanilla). But I'm not sure whether that's me being a particularly unsubmissive woman, or whether it's something else entirely.
Fantasies such as these are typically masturbatory, begin very early in childhood, as young as 3 or 4 years of age for some, remain fairly fixed over a lifetime
Actually, the things that, looking back, I'd recognize as having been my sexual fantasies as a child had totally different content than anything that has turned me on post-puberty (as well as being much less intense). I'm not sure why; maybe I'm thoroughly in the minority in having such a sharp shift.
These are the fantasies that when encountered in literature, in the movies, online for the first time, shock the person who is unfamiliar with the power they hold, and usually disturb the person to some degree with that power...
The DVD scene I found most erotic ever is a sort of weird choice that doesn't involve any actual (even simulated) sex, and the power of it over me took me by surprise. Though there were some special circumstances that could explain that particular case.
Others, bold little creatures, are determined to find playmates for a game of "Master and slave."
I had a childhood friend like that, briefly. She wanted to be the "master," and I would be the slave. I went along for a while, because I had so few friends at that age, but I hated the slave role, even if she, as master, was telling me to do things that I would otherwise have liked to do. So maybe there's some continuity for me there.
I never wanted to be tied up, as a child, but I did sometimes imagine escaping from being tied up, like Houdini. And I can remember pretending to be an escaped prisoner of war, when I played by myself, and liking to try to free all the people captured (rather than going for the flag), in Capture the Flag. And sometimes my dolls were slaves who escaped or escaped and freed the other slaves. Getting out of all kinds of tied up or enslaved or imprisoned situations appealed to my imagination. But not being stuck in them.
His/her performance will lack intensity, the same quality that makes vanilla sex memorable.
Sure. It's hard to be intense about stuff that doesn't turn you on.
[Lynn, thank you for this detailed response and the link in your recent post.
First, I agree with your observation that "[d]ominant/submissive is a sort of continuum." Nor are these desires constant: they wane and wax over time.
Like you, in real life, I am not a submissive person, nor am I a fan of romance novels. As for childhood games that would require me to be tied up, I would have not enjoyed those at all. Nor do I crave humiliation or degradation in any real life situation (no thank you -- had enough of that in childhood).
The fantasy of a BDSM scene is quite different from the reality. The fantasy that is played out in the mind is safer and less disappointing than trying to explain to a nonkink partner what you want and why. Would the frisson of ravishment be as strong if I could experience it with a partner in real life? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that generally my fantasies are not as intense after I enjoy sex with my partner. The human touch can soothe if not satisfy.
Another point I wish to make is that if I am afraid or ashamed of an act or a memory, I find it best to confront it. I learned that I waste too much energy trying to suppress a desire, and the desire grows stronger when suppressed for too long. -- Kochanie]
Submitted by 1742 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-11-11 06:43.
Excellent post, Kochanie, just what I expect from you.
My own piece in Time Out NY detailing acting out a rape fantasy caused quite a to-do on some feminist blogs. One author on Blogher found it disturbing, but tried her best to understand and be non-judgmental. Mandy of FeministReview.com, ripped it to shreds, making incorrect assumptions, based on her own preconceived notions, about everything including a photo that wasn't even accompanying my piece, to the thought that I needed to look deeply at myself to figure out what was wrong with me.
My body tells me what at times my mind can't quite understand. Why I enjoy BDSM isn't as important as the fact that my body responds in amazing ways, experiencing previously unknown sensations, putting me completely in the moment and leaving me with a tremendous feelings of release and happiness and peace at the end of a scene.
Keep writing.
Much love,
Tess
[I read Suzanne Reisman's post at BlogHer on your article on rape fantasies that appeared in Time Out: New York. She really did try to keep an open mind about dark fantasies and allowing other women the freedom to explore such desires. Mandy Van Deven: definitely not as open minded as Reisman, although I was encouraged by the supportive comments published by some of the readers. Your own comment at the end of that thread was probably the best affirmation of your decision to pursue this lifestyle. Thanks again, Tess. -- Kochanie]
Submitted by 1742 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-11-11 11:44.
Pretty brave post, Kochanie. Nicely done.
I think it's fine to have fantasies of, for instance, dominance and submission. Which is a good thing because I get the strong impression that a) wanting otherwise doesn't do us any good and b) trying to bottle it up often makes it pop up in less healthy ways (see Craig, Larry and bathroom stalls, Minnesota.)
I think the thing for me is that it's not so much where our signal fantasies (nice term, by the way) come from. For instance I'm perfectly willing to believe either that they're innate, that they're entirely imposed, or some combination in between. And lest that sound wishy-washy as can be the reason is that what *really* matters to me is how we play those fantasies out in real life.
And that's where feminist (and, I might add, most mainstream) approbation (and anxiety) comes in. I know this is going to sound peculiar but until feminist autonomy/anti-rape activism of the late 70's and 80's it wasn't really possible to be a "sexually submissive woman." You didn't consider yourself *lucky* to have a partner who could dominate, humiliate, or beat you, or on the other hand, a partner you could bind, spank, or rape -- you were just *heterosexual!* And you didn't need a special name for 24/7 D/s, you just called it "marriage." And finally for the majority those expected to sexually submit the phrase to use wasn't "fantasy brought to life" but "living nightmare."
The problem with sites like "Taken in Hand" is their confusion of their *specific, complementary, and tradition-resembling fetishes* with the *social conventions* we're trying to wrench ourselves away from. And while it may not be their *intent,* they shouldn't be surprised when reactions resemble, say, those Eastern-europeans or holocaust survivors to Tom of Finland's homoerotic drawings of jackbooted men.
Now I happen to think that confusion goes both ways where both strong feminists and strident anti-feminists see *sexually* submissive women or dominant men as affirmation or admission of Patriarchy with a capital P. I can think of about six ways to both reassure feminists and jam it in the faces of anti-feminists. (See, for instance, my similar posts questioning links between rape/forced-pregnancy porn and certain kinds of men who seem to dominate anti-abortion activism.) But that's not going to happen until both feminists and submissives start listening to each other. You are not, zero, at all, natural enemies even though it's *perfectly understandable* that you'd mistake each other for such.
Anyway, I think this is an important post, Kochanie, because you're staking out an area not to *advance* an idea but to *speak from.* And, ideally, one to *listen from* as well. Which is cool since various maps really do need to be redrawn to describe the actual territory.
Final note: Like Rosie I really enjoy being sexually dominant *in bed* although the idea of making daily life decisions for another human being is as deadly serious and therefore as completely asexual, as giving first aid to someone who's badly injured. Spank someone because the thought makes here extravagantly wet? You bet. Spank her because I didn't think she did the dishes right? You'd need to find somebody else. And (as in the days we're trying to get past) spank her because *I* have a shitty job and want someone to take my frustrations out on? Uh-uh, that's what counseling, behavior drugs, restraining orders, and prison is for.
Again, cool post, Kochanie.
figleaf
[Reading your comment, figleaf, I realize just how similar our view of dominance/submission is at this point in time. It's taken many years for me to accept this aspect of my sexuality as normal, and if I recall from some of your earlier posts, you initially resisted any attraction to sexual dominance. And I imagine that many people have to go though the same process from rejection to acceptance of their "outre" desires.
I do not think that all feminists are vehemently opposed to sexual submission. Case in point, Tess of Urban Gypsy wrote an article entitled I Want to be Raped for Time Out: New York. I was encouraged by Suzanne Reisman's
balanced post in which she admitted she was distressed by the article, but in a later comment states:
As for "Taken in Hand," the folks who contribute to that site run the gamut from those who view TIH as a variation of erotic power exchange to the domestic discipline types who believe spanking is a punishment and should not be considered fun. ;-( So I find it difficult to generalize about the readers who have shared their thoughts and experiences at that site, which contain a wealth of iinformation and links which eventually led me to your site.
I do agree that being a 24/7 dominant who spanks his partner for not dusting the knickknacks would be a burdensome role. At one discussion group, I read the complaints of two wives who had agreed to "submit" to their head-of-household husbands in domestic discipline marriages. Alas, the ladies had not received the expected spankings since their respective hubbies remained glued to the tv's. ;-)
Thanks, figleaf -- Kochanie.]
Submitted by 1742 (not verified) on Mon, 2007-11-12 06:11.
That was a fascinating read!
My earliest masturbation fantasies I would peg around 5 or 6 were of me getting spanked for stealing cookies.
To this day, all it takes is a nice smack on the ass from my partner and I'm wet and ready to go! It gets to me like nothing else.
I do enjoy being a switch, but I think my tendency to want to sub outweighs my urges to dom. However, this may partly be because I get far more chances to dom than to sub.
[It was an eye-opener for me as well, quilzas. It also make sense that we can trust our bodies, since some of us tend to spend our lives ignoring our bodies signals. Trying to ignore the signs that we are hungry or tired or need sex. Thank you, quilzas. And I will never be able to look at cookies again in the same way!]
Submitted by 1742 (not verified) on Mon, 2007-11-12 09:46.
I'd just add that as a male het sub raised in a semi-monastic fundie pietistic counter-culture in one of the more macho areas of the globe (Middle East) I found it quite eye-opening when my partner asked to be paddled. (I would have serious issues with bondage, beating with batons, etc. because of my identification of such practices with the police services of the state. Although waterboarding your date lends new meaning to the concept of "water sports", it's as dangerous as any other form of choking, and you'd have to be a SERE instructor to pull it off right. I suppose a book could be written--if people would open up--on the BDSM practices of the military/police in their personal lives. End digression.)
I think introducing a sub to a dom role for purposes of play would be easier than the reverse, since it involves an expansion of the role, rather than a reversal, and it can be labeled a play persona and hence unreal. I do find a bit of a disconnect in that SC gurus like "Mystery" von Markovik, Mike Pilinski, and Carlos Xuma argue just like radfem theorists Dworkin and MacKinnon that male dominance is a sine qua non for hetero sex, a kind of a riff on the idea of the feminine as inherently masochistic, which we owe to Havelock Ellis, Nietzsche, etc.
[Just a quick note on that from me, even though this is Kochanie's post: The difference is that radfems challenged the model (and in so doing shook it loose) whereas folks like Mystery are buying into it. It still works on people, sure, but, well... look, if you're a hetero male sub then you've already *got* a story that, unlike a zippy car, makes you *very* interesting to someone who isn't *quite* as predictable as the SC community would have it. Old maps don't work in the parts of the world that are new...! Good luck, Eurosabra. --fl]
[Eurosabra, let me say that I truly enjoy reading your comments here at figleaf's site.
As for "male dominance is a sine qua non for hetero sex" whether this is posited by Dworkin or Markovik, is an assumption that does not work for me. Aside from the neutrality of workplace (or what I hope is a neutral workplace) I think that adults, both men and women, have varying degrees of traits that, for lack of better terms, can be described as "masculine" or "feminine", "dominant" or "submissive." And you will be more compatible if you find a partner that complements your sexual nature. So two sexually submissive people -- be they man and woman, or man and man, or woman and woman -- will probably not be sexually compatible, because at any given time, one of the partners will have to act in a role that is not his/her true nature. This is why the SC techniques can fall flat, IMO. If a man has a reserved manner and is more contemplative, he has to act like someone else to get noticed, which could be stressful. If the SC teaches him to be more comfortable in social settings and when conversing with women, hey, that's fine. But if he succeeds in attracting a woman by pretending to be more outgoing and assertive than he really is, eventually both he and the woman will be disappointed, since he will grow weary of playing the role. He should be free to himself and find the partner that is attracted to that true self. Thanks, Eurosabra. -- Kochanie]