Let's Give Online D/s Some Credit For Reality

I've been pondering something the past few weeks, heck, I guess the past few years. Recently, a post in a community I belong to caused me to write on the topic. And that is, the "reality" of online D/s.

Here's the contradiction I'm trying to resolve. So many quickly come to the defense of online D/s as being real. Especially when "challenged" by those that are RL. And frankly, while the nature of any long-distance relationship is different than one of close proximity, why is it that online practitioners also seem to want to deny any attempts to impart the same "realism" in which the lifestyle is practiced in RL? If it's "real", why can't it be practiced with "reality"?

For sake of clarity, let me make sure the reader understands that I'm distinguishing between online D/s relationships, and online BDSM. Relationships are real, no matter where they are found, including online. BDSM activities online are another matter. No one may feel an online flogger, or be tied up online. Online BDSM is fantasy, plain and simple. There's a significant and essential difference between D/s relationships, and BDSM activities (read "How Does BDSM differ from D/s"), online or in RL. Don't confuse the two, or lump them together as the same thing. They're not.

My sense of things is that it's human nature to respond favorably to any lifestyle that says "no matter what you do, it's ok". Who wouldn't enjoy that? That's not a society though, that's chaos. Who wouldn't like a religion that said whatever we do is acceptable? That's not a religion though, it's atheism. Who wouldn't enjoy a chat room management that approved of anything and everything? That's not a community though, it's a crowd. Who wouldn't love a government that had no restrictions on behavior? That's not a government though, it's anarchy.

Yes, our lifestyle has three rules. Safe, sane and consensual. Most of us can recite them in our sleep. But what do they mean? Are they narrowly defined or broadly defined? Is safety simply physical safety, or is it emotional and mental as well? Is sane simply the line between coherent thought and clinical insanity, or does it include the difference between staying within the D/s societal norms (social behavior) and venturing outside them (anti-social behavior)? Is consensual simply saying "yes", or does it require an understanding of what one is consenting to?

The narrow definitions seem to be in vogue online. In RL, the broader definitions are in use. Why the difference? I accept that online D/s is practiced differently than in RL by necessity. But it's not necessary to also absolve ourselves of the greater responsibilities that the broader definitions require. It's not necessary to lower our expectations of ourselves, simply because we are online. Sure, it's not possible to actually place a collar around the neck of a submissive online, but is it too much to ask that he/she understand what it fully entails before doing so? Is it too much to ask that we honor it in the same way? Many will claim that it's not possible to physically injure someone online (I will dispute that depending upon how compliant an online submissive may be to a Master/Mistress's wishes beyond the keyboard), but is it too much to ask that it also precludes emotional and mental wounds as well? There are those that will assert that nothing insane can be conducted on a keyboard, but if it's an online only relationship, is it sane to encourage taking that same behavior into RL where it is dangerous?

Why does RL D/s use the broader definitions? Because those rules, applied broadly, are the difference between D/s and kinky sex. They are the difference between D/s and abuse. They are the difference between D/s and BDSM. You don't think that RL’ers spend years learning about the narrow definitions, do Y/you? I mean, to learn the narrow definition takes ten minutes, tops. And I hope you don't have the misguided perception that all that RL learning is just to become proficient in additional BDSM activities. Yes, at munches and other lifestyle gatherings there are demo's on wax play, flogging, etc. But there are also discussions and lectures. Because after all, BDSM is not D/s. To practice D/s with any kind of reality requires a far greater understanding than how to use a strap, or how to tell the difference between a submissive that verbally says "yes" or "no". (I want to be VERY clear here, that there are MANY times that a submissive says "yes" and means "no", or says "yes" and as Dominants we know it's not safe or sane, or says "yes" and we know that it is beyond their capability, or says "yes" and doesn't understand what they are saying "yes" to. In the example used, the narrow definitions only require hearing "yes" or "no", not making any of these other determinations.)

The "reality" of D/s is that within these three rules, there are plenty of obligations. They are broad, catch-all rules like "be respectful". Many activities and behaviors fall under that umbrella. And rather than giving online D/s little credit, I propose that many RLers give online plenty of credit for reality. Because they expect the same application of the same three rules that all D/s lifestyles are founded on. The same rules that are claimed here online. And the disappointment is not in the lack of reality, but in the lack of understanding and application. Online we pay homage to the same lifestyle, to the same rules. And yet we don't understand them to the same extent, nor apply them in the same way. Not because it's not possible. Is it because they are an inconvenience?

I guess from my own point of view, I give online D/s plenty of credit for being real. Heck, I've been here and done it myself. What would it say if I held online to a lower standard online than in RL? What would it say if I asked you to hold me to a lower standard online than in RL?

Post Script:

I've found it interesting how many different people in the several communities in which I posted this article read it in so many different ways. I guess philosophy is kind of like art, we can interpret it in whatever way is most pleasing to us personally.

Most of the time, I'd just leave it at that and let everybody take from it whatever they could. But in this instance, I'm going to try to clarify myself because I think an important lesson may be lost to some.

My point, to those online, was that if you want to be taken seriously, treat it seriously. If you want RLers to see online as "real" D/s, as a sort of long distance relationship, then act real. If you want legitimacy, live up to the obligations and responsibilities inherent to the lifestyle, whether it be online or in RL. It's not enough to "talk the talk", even online it's necessary to "walk the walk".

I sense that many have seen the all too frequent contradiction online. The claims of reality (not necessarily meaning RL), with little demonstration of it.

Rover«»© 2001

Excellent books for Dominant's,,,