A submissives journey

An issue of Prometheus had an article that touched, once again, on the issue of 24/7 power exchange relationships. This subject generates a lot of controversy and heated discussion. I have spent the last year and a half talking with people who live with their Dominant or submissive partner and have observed their interaction with the goal of trying to ferret out "what we way" versus "what we do".

I talked to a great number of people who characterize their relationships as being "24/7" or "TPE (Total Power Exchange". The Dominant will make statements such as "I make all the decisions.", "My submissive has no power in the relationship - he/she exists only for me", or even "My submissive retains his/her personal power, however I make all the decisions and am always in charge." Conversely, I hear statements from submissives such as "I have no needs. My only need is to serve my Master/Mistress", "I do not make any decisions" or "I have no limits." This is "what we say".

Then I look at the reality of what I see in the relationship and the interaction between the parties. The reality viewed from an objective standpoint is generally not "what we say".
I have yet to see a D/s (Dominant submissive) relationship that is not a symbiotic balance of the needs of two people. Although one may say that their sole need is to serve their Dominant, the truth of the matter is that they define serving in a more or less narrow manner that just happens to agree with the definition that the Dominant also has, and almost invariably includes elements of BDSM. If the definition of serving extended to assuming a completely vanilla lifestyle because the Dominant had decided to forsake the scene to address a need of their own, it is fairly likely that the submissive would no longer be fulfilled by submitting to that need, because their own needs would not be being met. When the submissive states they have no needs, frequently they have need to have the fantasy that they have no needs. When you look at the reality, they have needs, just the same as the rest of us. However, for the people in question, the fantasy of not having needs is a key component to maintaining intensity and connectedness within the relationship.

The same sort of dynamic applies to limits. When a submissive says "I have no limits." what they are generally saying is that they are comfortable with the limits their Dominant has. They rely on their limits and their Dominants limits being the same. If the Dominant were to suddenly develop a passionate interest in something that the submissive found repugnant, I think that the submissive would suddenly find that they had some serious limits. However, again, as in the case of the submissive with no needs, there is a fantasy need on the part of the submissive to feel like they have no limits in their submission to their top.

Most Dominant submissive (D/s) relationships are fundamentally relationships of balance. They are benevolent autocracies in many cases where major decisions are made by consensus, with both parties having input, but where the "designated decision maker" is the Dominant, whose role is to state aloud the decision that consensus has created. Frequently the dominance in the sexual arena is mistaken for dominance in all things. The fact that the Dominant may choose to wake the submissive at 3am for sex doesn't change the fact that the decision about buying a new car is made by consensus with input by both parties, not in a void with the Dominant making unilateral decisions, although once the Dominant has ascertained what the consensus is, part of the dynamic of the relationship is for them to say, in a very authoritative manner that "they have decided that this will be done". Minor decisions or decisions pertaining to a very specific arena, such as sexuality, tend to be the areas where the Dominant exerts the option of unilateral decision making. Let's face it, damned few submissives are going to smile politely if the Dominant suddenly decided to take the down payment for the house and buy themselves a Porsche instead, because after all, "they're the Dom", although the same rationalization for sex at 3am is perfectly fine and generally leaves both parties smiling. The example of the Porsche may be extreme, but each relationship has its equivalent. This seems to be the reality of "what we do".

All the long lasting Dominant submissive (D/s) relationships I have observed are fundamentally balanced. Each person's needs are met and crucial decision making is by consensus. Ones that are fundamentally imbalanced seem to implode relatively quickly, as one partner or the other is unable to maintain the structural imbalance for an extended period. A crucial component to these relationships seem to be the ability to create a fantasy overlay which casts the relationship in a language of one partner being totally in charge, with the underlying base being one of balance. Another crucial component seems to be the temporary willful suspension of disbelief by both parties as to the personality attributes of each person. In other words, "what we say" is that the Dominant is infallible and the submissive is selfless. Part of the trust and the power in the relationship revolves around being able to say that these things - even if reality is obviously different. The fantasy component is an absolute necessity in these relationships; it creates the bonding, the trust and the romance that a key ingredient to the glue. The reality component is just as critical. Without the fundamental balance between the two parties, the relationship is probably doomed, since it is relying solely on the fantasy component without allocating any space for the reality component. My observations and discussions have led me to conclude that successful, long term Dominant submissive (D/s) relationships are fundamentally balanced peer relationships with a negotiated fantasy overlay that sustains creates a vehicle for the people involved to get key sexual and emotional needs met.