Input:
 The author discusses whether or not someone is a loving dominant. They mention that sadism, cruelty, and brutality have become confused and intertwined in society, making it difficult to separate these concepts from domination. They advise readers to look deeply into their answers to determine if they are a loving dominant.

The first question is whether one gets as much pleasure from erotically exciting their partner as from their own enjoyment. If so, they are likely to be a good dominant as the essence of BDSM is to take another's power and use it for mutual pleasure.

The second question is whether one wants an easy relationship with them as the unquestioned boss. BDSM relationships are more complex than vanilla relationships and require careful balancing of power and responsibility.

The third question is whether one has been in an abusive relationship and wants to "turn the tables". This is not recommended as revenge is a poor motivation for an intimate relationship and can lead to further damage to one's self-esteem.

The fourth question is why one wants to control another person. The desire to help, enhance, or make others happy is common among dominants. Self-centered people often find the responsibilities of a BDSM relationship overwhelming.

The fifth question is whether one has fantasies involving nonconsensual activities or harm to another. This is not necessarily a problem as long as they remain in one's head and don't act on them as it is against the ethical principles of BDSM and could lead to legal trouble.

Response:
Are You a Loving Dominant?

Well, are you? It may seem like an easy question to answer, but it can be more difficult than you realize. Sadly, in our society, domination, sadism, cruelty and brutality have become confused and intertwined.

Crude, unrealistic fiction has made the situation worse. Publishers have found that to reach the broadest possible audience, they must include themes that are repugnant to many. Because consensual, loving BDSM in fiction is so rare, those who are interested in these themes must pick through thousands of pages, like looking for jewels in a dungheap, to find sections they find provocative, while other readers wallow in the nonconsensual brutality.

The following is a series of questions that you need only to answer in your own soul. Be honest with yourself and look deeply into those answers to see if this scene is really for you.

Do you get as much pleasure or more from erotically exciting your partner as from your own enjoyment of the sexual act?

If this is true, you are likely to be a good dominant. The essence of this kind of play is to take anothers power and then use it for mutual pleasure. If you already seek to maximize your partners gratification, you have a mindset that will adapt well to BDSM.

Do you want an easy relationship with you as the unquestioned boss?

If yes, then BDSM is unlikely to be for you. A BDSM relationship is more, not less, complex than one that is purely vanilla. This is because BDSM relationships generally have all the components of a vanilla relationship, plus those that are unique to BDSM.

It is common to hear dominants talk about how hard they have to work. This is because in exchange for the power that is given us, we must find ways of using that power for the benefit and pleasure of both participants. At the same time, because of the trust given us, we must be very sure that nothing we do is harmful to anyone in the relationship. This kind of careful balancing act certainly isnt attractive to someone looking for an easy ride.

Have you been in an abusive relationship and would like to "turn the tables" on someone like the person who abused you?

This is another rough start. A significant number of people in BDSM have been in abusive relationships, and some of them consciously use BDSM psychodramas to help them work through the negative feelings that resulted from these experiences.

However, revenge is a poor motivation for such an intimate relationship, and it is likely to result in further damage to your self-esteem.

Why do you want to control another person?

This is a sticky one. Film star Vanessa del Rio once told me one of her earliest fantasies was of having a group of tiny people in the palm of her hand. She loved to imagine that she had complete control of them, but, to me, the key was that she imagined that she would use this power to make them happy.

The desire to help, to enhance or to make others happy is common among dominants. This may be why so many dominants are in the teaching and helping professions: medicine, social work, religion. Other-centered people make good dominants. Self-centered people often find that the strain of the responsibilities inherent in a BDSM relationship is overwhelming.

In a consensual relationship, control applied purely to self-gratification is a self-limiting proposition. Submissives who do not get what they are looking for are unlikely to remain in a relationship for very long.

Do you have fantasies involving nonconsensual activities or harm to another?

This isnt as serious as you may believe. The trick is being able to keep the fantasies inside your head and separate from the scene you are playing with another person. Most of us have large, hairy monsters in the dark corners of our mind. What separates the civilized from the uncivilized is how tight a leash we keep on them.

Having fantasies is all right; acting on them isnt. Aside from being totally against the ethical principles of the scene, such "play" can get you locked up with other people who believe in nonconsensual play, and they may be bigger than you are.


Input:
 The author continues to explore the concept of BDSM, delving into the psychology behind it and addressing the question of why people engage in it. They talk about how different people have different reasons for their interest and that there is no one universal answer to why someone is into BDSM. They discuss how both sadism and masochism have been studied extensively, but the theories are varied and often contradictory.

The author then focuses on submissive individuals, describing them as strong people who are taking a break from their responsibilities, and how they experience pleasure from the contrast of powerlessness. They mention that many submissives are selective about who they submit to and form strong bonds with their partners.

The author also discusses submissive men, noting that they are more complex and somewhat simpler than their female counterparts. They suggest that some submissive men may be drawn to BDSM because of guilt or emotional pain, or as a way to escape from emotional pain. They caution readers not to coerce submissives into scenes for therapeutic purposes.

Finally, the author turns to dominant individuals, suggesting that they are not necessarily weak, but rather may find pleasure in the control and the intense experiences they can create for their partners. They describe how BDSM allows them to experience a sense of complete control that is often lacking in their daily lives.

Write this segment of the story in the form of a detailed conversation.

Response:
Dig All Those Crazy People

Why? Why do people do this? Why do people love this? Some of us are fascinated with the genesis of these feelings and enjoy searching for the root cause of our desires. Others, myself included, hold with Alexander Pope that, "Like following life though creatures you dissect, you lose it in the moment you detect it."

Sometimes, I suspect that too close an examination can actually destroy the feelings being studied, and I recognize that an understanding of causes is not necessary for enjoyment. I have only the vaguest idea of why chocolate ice cream tastes good, but that ignorance decreases neither my enjoyment nor my consumption.

Ill admit my sexual tastes are more unusual than love for chocolate ice cream. Still, no one has done deep analyses of why some people like chocolate sauce on their pizza. People who love it pack the Hersheys syrup on trips to Pizza Hut, and the rest of us avert our eyes and shudder a bit or maybe borrow a dollop and see how it tastes on the pepperoni. They are simply classified as weird or, if they are rich enough, eccentric.

Psychologists, psychiatrists, social science theorists, theologians and feminists havent lined up to find answers for this chocolate "perversion," for people carrying handkerchiefs they never use in their coat pockets or for voting Republican. These are simply "trite eccentricities" unworthy of study.

To make the question even more complex, the language of experience is not the same as the language of classification. Race car drivers dont study physics, although they may pick up a good bit of it in passing. They drive. They experience. They dont think about the underlying mechanics but about the feel of the car and the track.

People have studied poems since before Aristotle wrote Poetics. Their reactions still come down to "This poem speaks to me."

However, some enjoy sharpening their Aristotelian knives and having at "the search for why." If you tend toward this approach, I dedicate this search for causes to you.

Some give a simple answer to "Why?" "It is fun, enjoyable." "We like to do it." Unfortunately, this kind of simplicity isnt looked upon kindly by the members of the Ivory-Tower Brigade, who glory in philosophical head- knocking and counting dancing-angels.

Unfortunately, all too many of these deep thinkers have largely fixated on sadistic monsters and masochistic victims. Like Shakespeares Horatio, they have failed to realize that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in their philosophy. Neither loving domination or sensual submission is part of the paradigms they develop. To admit that these exist might knock their carefully constructed houses of cards askew. To make matters worse, the competing theories are all different, and most of them, are mutually exclusive.

I was strongly tempted to exclude much of the psychological theory on the grounds that it is inconsequential to the people most actively involved. Unfortunately, I have been repeatedly and forcefully reminded that anyone attempting to discuss BDSM with a learned audience or with doctors is going get presented with these spurious explanations.

I suppose that it is better you encounter them here, amid interpretation and exegesis, than to have them flung into your face with an implication that they are, somehow, revealed truth. Just take a firm grip on your temper and read on.

Theories of sadism and masochism

In the labeling craze of the 19th century, when scientists still clung to the mystical concept that to label something was to control it, D.R. von Krafft-Ebing came up the terms "sadism" and "masochism" in his book _Psychopathia Sexualis._ This learned tome was a sort of Sears and Roebuck catalog of perversion, listing just about everything that two or more people could do together to get their individual or collective rocks off. Krafft-Ebing must have had a good laugh on thrill-seekers perusing his volume; he put the boring stuff in English and the good parts in Latin.

As most people in the scene know, the term "sadism" came from the writings of the Marquis Donatien Alphonse Francois de Sade and masochism from those of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch. Both de Sades writings (including _Philosophy in the Bedroom, Justine, Juliet, Twenty Days at Sodom)_ and Sacher-Masochs _Venus in Furs_ are still hot-selling items today. A quick glance at any of de Sades work will show you why many dominants are infuriated when they are accused of being sadists. Nonconsensuality was the order of the day for the Marquis.

Krafft-Ebing got it almost right with submission when he defined masochism as:

_"A peculiar perversion of the psychical sexual life in which the person affected, in sexual feeling and thought, is controlled by the idea of being completely and unconditionally subject to the will of a person of the opposite sex; of being treated by this person as by a master…"_

Aside from the near miss of failing to recognize that submission is independent of hetero- or homo-erotic orientation and throwing in the term perversion, he came fairly close to how many submissives would describe themselves. However, after that good start, he ruined it by adding three words, "humiliated and abused," at the end. With just three words, he narrowed the definition to include only the small percentage of submissives who do enjoy humiliation, and convicted the master, a person who is doing what the submissive wants done, of being abusive.

Krafft-Ebing was even less kind to dominants and tops, who he implicitly lumps with sadists.

_"Sadism is the experience of sexually pleasurable sensations (including orgasm) produced by acts of cruelty, bodily punishment inflicted by ones own person or when witnessed in others, be they animals or human beings. It may consist of an innate desire to humiliate, hurt, wound or even destroy the others in order thereby to create sexual pleasure in ones self."_

Unfortunately, aside from some amusing — or horrifying — examples (depending on your point of view), Krafft-Ebing is almost useless to anyone looking for insights. Sadism is simply seen as "a pathological intensification of the male sexual character," and females are seen as anxious, irritable and weak. (I wonder how Mistress Mir, Goddess Sia or any of the other myriad dominant women feel about that?)

Freud, the father of modern psychology, took the ball and ran with it. Not one to do things by halves, he came up with three separate and sometimes contradictory theories. In "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality," he claimed that sadism is a component part of the sexual instinct, an "instinct for mastery" that is inherently masculine, and masochism is "nothing but inverted sadism." Freud declared that sadism and masochism are interchangeable. Masochism is only sadism that has turned inward upon the self.

Sadists behave as they do, according to this theory, because, during childhood, they were trapped in the anal stage of development, attempting to control the parent figure by releasing and withholding feces. (Does the term "crock of shit" come to mind?)

In his later essay, "A Child Being Beaten," Freud shifted the birth of sadomasochism to the childs first oedipal conflict and linked it with parental punishment and punishment fantasies. His argument was that the child links forbidden, sexual feelings with the fear of punishment. In effect, pain is the payment for pleasure.

With better footwork than a running back, Freud next feinted toward his first theory but then went wide and, in "The Economic Problem of Masochism," hypothesized that masochism, not sadism, is the primary component and linked it with the death instinct. For one thing, masochism, in his eyes, was necessary so that women could endure childbirth.

Eric Fromm, a leading light of the Frankfurt School, a group of German intellectuals who desperately tried to explain the rise of Nazism, moved the discussion of sadism and masochism from the individual, where Freud had staked his claim, to society, or at least to the individuals reaction to society. In The Fear of Freedom, Fromm postulated that freedom itself was frightening in that it caused intolerable loneliness and that individuals adopt various strategies to escape from it. He maintained that sadomasochists use control as such an escape hatch.

For example, masochists were described as consciously complaining about being weak, inferior and powerless, while at the same time seeking circumstances where these feelings were intensified.

Fromm argued that the masochists, failing repeatedly at being strong and independent, became even more weak and passive to reduce the conflict between what they want and what they could accomplish, like someone who says, "If I cant play perfect baseball, Ill become the team clown and everyone will think Im fucking up on purpose."

The sadists, on the other hand, were seen as recognizing their inferiority and powerlessness and seeking to control others to gain an ersatz strength in place of real strength. In effect, he saw us as failed admirals playing with toy boats in the bathtub.

Jean Genet, the author, drew on Freuds third field goal attempt in his philosophical classic, _Being and Nothingness,_ where he argued that both sadism and masochism were responses to a fear of mortality, of death. In his play, _The Balcony,_ lawyers and other powerful individuals played out masochistic fantasies in a surreal house of domination. The theme implies that they are doing this to strike a psychic balance and atone for their sadistic behavior in the real world. Its as if they were saying, "I hit him; now you hit me, and everyone will be even."

A Swedish psychiatrist, Lars Ullerstam, supported Jean Genets hypothesis regarding masochism as an exculpatory behavior. However, he pointed out that the presence of powerful, rich men in such BDSM brothels may also be because they, unlike their less powerful counterparts, can afford to pay the fees involved. Thus, it may be that the overwhelming number of lawyers who dominatrixes report seeing as clients, are not expiating sins particular to this profession. They may simply be making an obscene amount of money and, thus, be able to afford the dominatrixs service.

Jessica Benjamin, in her _Powers of Desire,_ alleged that both sadistic and masochistic behavior were fueled by a need for recognition. The masochist suffers to be recognized as worthwhile by the sadist while the sadist subjugates another person to force recognition from him or her. Benjamin, on the other hand, gets her recognition by writing books.

During the conference that followed publication of the _Playboy Foundation Report_ in the 1970s, researchers had a chance to differentiate sadism from dominance. W.B. Pomeroy described a segment of a filmed scene which depicted a waxing. He had noticed that the "sadist" was watching, not just the place where the wax was falling, but also the expression on his partners face. When this sadist detected that she was getting close to the edge, he raised the candle to reduce the intensity of the stimulation. Pomeroy commented, "It suddenly occurred to me that the masochist was almost literally controlling the sadists hand."

Sadly, a less imaginative colleague pooh-poohed the idea and insisted that "genuine" sadists are not interested in a willing partner. (Im personally glad this myopic soul was not present at the discovery of penicillin. He probably would have thrown out the moldy bread.)

Working in what is known as the Object Relations School of psychology, Margaret Mahler attempted to explain sadism and masochism by looking at a childs early relationship to objects. Rather than placing the critical age in puberty as did Freud, she held that such desires begin before the age of four.

In sort of a Cliffs Notes explanation, Ill just say that object relations theory says that children go through a series of phases in which they seek either greater independence or greater reassurance. Mahler argued that both masochism and sadism come from a failure to have these needs satisfied at the proper time. In effect, the person is trapped repeating the critical phase in hopes of "doing better this time.

For example, she believed a sadist may have been unable to form a satisfactory relationship with his or her mother and turns to sadism in an attempt to make a controlled relationship in which he or she can try to recreate that relationship. On the other hand, the masochist was able to form a satisfactory bond but was unable to break it at the appropriate time. Thus, he or she is seeking a relationship from which a clean break is possible.

There has been good news in recent years. When this book was first written in the early 1990s, the primary reference for the American Psychiatric Association was the DSM IIIr (Diagnostic Statistical Manual, third edition, revised). This "learned tome" was not at all kind to us, holding that to seek either sexual submission or dominance was a treatable disorder. (Of course, they termed it either Sexual Masochism or Sexual Sadism, bringing in a different kettle of fish.) Interestingly enough, according to DSM IIIr, it was all right to simply have these fantasies, but seeking them out that made one a candidate for the place with the latex wallpaper.

A person could dream of going to a loving leather-clad woman. He could burn in his bed each night with unslaked desire for the hug of the rope and the kiss of the whip. However, one trip down to Mistress Harshs House of Loving Leather made him a potential resident of the laughing academy.

Intent was immaterial. In the view of the authors, someone who pleased his or her lover with a bit of erotic spanking was lumped right along with a creep setting fire to kittens.

Fortunately, through the efforts of kink activists and kink-friendly therapists lead by the author/ activist Race Bannon, DSM IV presented us in a much better light. Now, to be treatable, we must either be disturbed by our desires or have those desires take over our worlds to the point where they disrupt out daily lives.

Even Madonna has a theory about why we like what we like. In an interview with _Newsweek_ magazine, she suggested that her sexuality may stem from her Catholic upbringing and is quoted as saying, "When I was growing up, there were certain things people did for penance; I know people who slept on coat hangers or kneeled on uncooked rice on the floor…and as for me, I think somehow things got really mixed up. There was some ecstasy involved in that.

"And the whole idea of crucifixion – a lot of that, the idea of being tied up. It is surrendering yourself to someone. Im fascinated by it. I mean, there is a lot of pain-equals- pleasure in the Catholic church, and that is also associated with bondage and S&M."

From the index cards of a 19th century cataloger to the musings of the Material Girl herself, this is a sample from the varied buffet table of psychological explanations of BDSM – or to be more precise, Sadism and Masochism. You are free to pick and choose as it pleases you.

Suggested Reading:

_S &M: Studies in Sadomasochism_ (Thomas Weinberg ed.) _Different Loving_ (Brame, Brame & Jacobs)

Why would someone want to be submissive?

For myself, I believe that many submissives are strong people who are taking a vacation from their responsibilities. By giving their considerable power to others, they benefit from the aphrodisiac of contrast. To shift, willingly, from powerful to powerless gives their libidos extraordinary jolts.

This erotic nature of contrast may explain why, during the many years I spent in Asia, I never encountered what I considered a truly submissive woman. Most women in Asian cultures are steeped in submission; it is not a choice, nor is it a change. For me, the fire was missing from their submission. They got no more of a sensual charge from their submission than American women get from signaling a cab or buying a meal.

Many of the submissives I have talked to find that their attraction to the scene is based largely on this contrast between having power and control and releasing themselves to simply experience powerlessness at the hands of another whom they trust. Almost everyone knows the sheer joy of coming home after a hard days work and slipping off the wingtips or high heels and putting on a well-worn pair of slippers. Many submissives simply carry it a step further and slip off the entire business-mandated Type A personality to submit to a trusted dominant.

There is a misunderstanding on the part of some wannabe doms and many in the vanilla public about the essence of submission. Part of the fault is our phrasing. We speak of "a submissive person," and that is not precisely correct. A better phrase would be "a person who is submissive to…" This understandable error is created and compounded by playacting in the cyber world and misleading plots in pornographic novels.

In the real world the nature of the submissive is often quite different from what is seen in these limited purviews of fiction and fantasy. This is particularly true in the case of submissive women. These ladies are not submissive to just any individual who happens to want to play as a dominant or as a top.

A woman who has elected to give her submissive side permission to play is, in my opinion, stronger and more courageous than those of her vanilla sisters who have that side and do not let it show. Such a woman is not likely to submit herself to anyone who just happens to own a whip.

Far from simply waiting for a dominant or top to appear, these women seek and select the person to whom they will submit. In turning over their power to this individual (or, more rarely, these individuals), the submissive woman forms a bond that is often stronger than that of a conventional sexual dyad.

By the same token, depending on the personal style of both the submissive and the dominant, the submissive woman in such an affiliation may be quite active and aggressive outside of the scene portion of the relationship.

Submissive men are both more complex and simpler than their female counterparts. Either because of the nature of the male/female dichotomy, such as early childhood conditioning and the nature of our society, many male submissives are much less selective of whom they submit to. While a submissive female is a rare sight in the BDSM clubs, submissive males in search of a master or mistress make up the bulk of any given nights attendance.

Some submissives report say that they have chosen their role because they found that the strength and control they have in their vanilla lives interfere with their sensual enjoyment. A number of years ago, I had a relationship with a brilliant and successful psychologist who had to be bound and helpless in order to reach orgasm.

Her explanation was consistent and cogent. Before discovering bondage, she found that, as she approached orgasm during intercourse, an anxiety would appear that would quite overwhelm the building passion. This anxiety did not appear during masturbation. Examining the anxiety in a cool and detached manner as if it were a symptom reported by a client, she concluded that she had been socialized to please and cater to her partner during sex. She concluded that her subconscious mind, recognizing that during climax she would be out of control, was sabotaging the orgasm.

Her solution was to make the desire-to-please irrelevant. Because when she was bound she could not do anything either to please or displease her partner, she found that bondage allowed her, in her own words, "to wallow in sensation." When she was tied, she was able to reach orgasm repeatedly.

An alternate explanation, offered by another member of the psychological community, suggested that the root cause was, instead, a deep-seated guilt about non-marital sex. In effect, her subconscious was punishing her for engaging in "sinful" behavior. In this scenario, the bondage "gave her permission" to enjoy sex because it wasnt her "fault."

_A submissive man allowed that guilt did play a significant factor in his love of bondage. As he put it, "It is difficult to get past the Calvinist idea that feeling good isnt enough._ _There must be some greater purpose, some tangible benefit for society." Being bound and helpless freed him from the need to search for that benefit._

Other submissives have said that they have found, in loving submission and certain pleasure/pain activities, a way of coming to terms with legacies of emotional pain. For example, it is not uncommon for a submissive to be drawn to recreating scenes of abuse or rape with a loving partner acting the part of the aggressor. While, on the surface, this might be seen as counterproductive, those I have spoken to are unanimous in declaring that the psychodrama helped them "get control of the trauma."

The logic seems to be that the original act left the victim with a sense of powerlessness, but reenacting it in an environment of BDSM, where he or she can set the parameters of the action and even abruptly halt the scene with a safeword, gives a feeling of empowerment.

I should note here that these submissive individuals, both male and female, initiated the idea of using a scene psychodrama in this way. I would strongly caution any dominant not to coerce a submissive into such scenes with the thought of providing a sort of home-brew therapy. The dynamics of control seem to indicate that a suggestion of this sort must originate from the individual most directly affected.

Other submissives report that BDSM helps them deal with emotional pain by allowing them to "go away," to escape into the intense sensuality and endorphinin- engendered haze where memories and even rational thought becomes secondary. This is often referred to as "subspace," but, as with much in this world, the criteria vary greatly for what "subspace" actually is and how one gets there.

Of course, this going-away isnt unique to BDSM. I doubt that there are many of us who have not set down an engrossing book to discover we were cramped and ached from the position in which we had been sitting. The book literally took us away from our bodies.

A friend who is active in the arts observes that the first five minutes of a play or musical presentation may be accompanied by coughs and other noises from the audience. Soon, these vanish as the performance lifts the audience from the mundane sensations of their bodies to a higher plane where noises from tickles in the throat and squeaks from uncomfortable chairs cannot follow.

When these submissives talk about their use of BDSM to deal with their pain, its not clear whether they are describing a benefit or a cause. Did the emotional pain lead the person to choose a submissive role in BDSM play? While this is possible, I could equally persuasively argue that the person was already submissive and was simply using the BDSM scene to deal with the existing pain.

Another need or cause cited by some submissives is that in their early lives they sealed away their emotions. In some cases, this was the result of abuse; in others, it was because the family ignored or concealed emotion. As one submissive woman put it, "By being submissive to my master and relinquishing all control to him, we are slowly tearing down the protective walls I built because of some things which happened in my childhood. For me, BDSM is a way of confronting my fears and allowing myself to grow emotionally. What I find most appealing about BDSM are the emotional and psychological aspects – although the physical is also fun. Would I still find it appealing if my childhood had been different? I dont know, but I doubt it."

Another woman commented that before she took part in BDSM activities she had been very passive and stuck in vanilla relationships. However, after experiencing the intense communications necessary to make a BDSM relationship work, she found herself being more forthright.

Is the increased ability to communicate simply a benefit of the scene, or did the blocking these women experienced cause their submissive feelings? Did the blocking and the feelings have the same original source? Obviously, there isnt any clear, single answer.

Why would someone want to be dominant?

Some individuals take the inverse of my relaxing- from-power explanation of submissive behavior to state that dominants, then, must be weak individuals who need to take the power from others to experience a contrast to their helplessness.

Aside from the knee-jerk reaction that this aint so, the available evidence doesnt seem to fit. Before I took to writing full time, I was the vice president of a successful market research company. Many of my fellow dominants in and out of the major scene organizations hold stressful, high-pressure jobs and do very well.

_If our motivation isnt the reverse of the submissives motivation, what is it? I have come to the conclusion that the essence of what motivates me are two interlocking items. One factor is that I get a tremendous charge from my partners pleasure. BDSM is a wonderful way to get someone off more intensely than most vanilla people can imagine._

Many teachers and guides say that one of their major rewards is to see someone excited by a new idea or an unexpected vista. Having been a college professor, I know exactly what they mean, and I can see a definite kinship between that feeling and the feeling I get watching a woman in a paroxysm of pleasure. There is a feeling of accomplishment knowing I have helped someone climb higher and go further than he or she could have gone alone.

Another factor in my attraction to the dominant role is that the BDSM situation allows me to be in almost complete control. In todays modern world, this is a situation that is becoming more and more difficult to attain. In fact, the more powerful one becomes, the more it seems that he or she is buffeted by collateral factors and outside forces.

For example, to a naive observer, I may seemed to be in complete control in my office. However, I have to depend on my employees doing their jobs correctly. I have to depend on suppliers to be on the ball. Much of what I seem to control I really "managed," a much less satisfactory situation. In BDSM, I am in complete control, to fail or succeed as my talents and imagination permit. I control every factor, and I do not have to depend on anyone. Any object I depend on (whips, ropes, suspension gear) I can test and retest until I am certain it works. Being in that kind of control pleases me intensely.

This, of course, may not be the true cause of these feelings. No mirror is completely accurate and ego is a subtle distorter of fact. I can only urge you to look into your own hearts and, most importantly, enjoy.


Input:
 Write a foreword for the first edition of a book titled "The Loving Dominant". It should define BDSM as a consensual exchange of power between partners for erotic thrill.
The foreword should also mention that not all BDSM practices involve pain or physical restraints and that non-physical power transfers such as energy exchanges during sex are equally valid.

Consent and safety are emphasized as crucial components of BDSM. This is followed by a discussion of the terms "S&M" and "D/s", explaining why the author prefers the latter as a more accurate representation of the dynamic between partners, as opposed to the former which is associated with non-consensual practices.

The author then describes how "play" in BDSM can be dangerous despite its name, and that he will differentiate between risky and less risky activities, providing ways to minimize the risks.

He writes from his perspective as a heterosexual male dominant but acknowledges contributions from female dominants, submissives, and tops, providing a balanced viewpoint.

He includes his personal biases and opinions, encouraging debate and further exploration. The foreword is aimed at reaching a wide audience including novice dominants, experienced players looking for new inspiration, submissives seeking understanding and courage, and non-BDSM individuals who may be curious or hold misconceptions about the practice.

Finally, he explains the dual usage of the term "scene" in BDSM, differentiating between "the scene" as the umbrella term for the community and practices, and "a scene" as a specific encounter between partners.

He concludes with the emphasis on the importance of the safeword, a clear signal for stopping any activity that has become too intense.

Response:
Foreword to the First Edition

What is "domination and submission?" It is a form of erotic play that takes place when one voluntarily gives up some or all of his or her power and freedom to another for the purpose of sensual excitement. For most practitioners, it is a kind of chocolate frosting on the conventional sexuality cake, an enhancement and expansion rather than a substitute for the genital sex.

To many who indulge in its pleasures, it is a cathartic sexual game based on fantasy, a sensual psychodrama. Moreover, the term describes both activities and relationships. People, who take part in BDSM games at anything more than the most surface level usually discover that these activities intensify the emotional connections between themselves and their partners.

There are only two universals in the practice of BDSM. First, there must be a power transfer between or among the parties in the relationship. Second, all activities must be consensual.

In the transfer, one person gives up a certain amount of power, and another person or persons accept it. The individual who gives up power is the submissive, and the one who accepts it is the dominant. The amount of power given up by the submissive varies widely among couples and may be different at different times for the same couple. At one end of the spectrum, the submissive can agree to remain absolutely still and passive while the other reads a story or describes a fantasy. At the other end, the submissive can display rigorous restraint while enduring (and enjoying) the application of intense and varied stimuli.

This transfer of power doesnt have to be at the physical level of, "You must do this," and, "You cant do that." It can be on a much deeper spiritual level. A casual play partner showed me an ancient Hindu drawing of a couple making love with curved and straight lines, called chakras, that led from various parts of one body to the comparable parts of the others. She explained that they represented energy transfers the Hindus believed took place during sex. As I looked at the picture, I realized that during the scene I felt this energy transfer, but I hadnt considered visualizing it in such a way. My partner, in some kind of metaphysical way, seemed to be sending me a force that I returned to her through my actions in the scene.

Consensuality means that not only has the submissive partner consent to the activities, but that the dominant or top also consents. The latter point is often overlooked, but it is very important to understanding the true dynamics of the relationship that underlies the activities.

Other terms that have been applied to these games are "B&D" (bondage and discipline) and "S&M" (sadism and masochism). The former is an accurate description of the activities of some members of the greater BDSM community. However, there are many who revel in forms of BDSM with neither a rope or a whip. Although the term S&M is very popular with many BDSM dominants, I feel that we would be better off cutting our ties with it.

My reasoning is that while masochists make up a significant part of the BDSM community, far from all submissives are masochists and some masochists are far from submissive. Some masochists can be most emphatic about demanding and getting a proper dose of pain during any given session, while others arent as vocal.

However, what bothers me about the phrase S&M is the S. The Marquis de Sade, as anyone who has read his writings knows, favored unwilling victims for his cruel activities, which were entirely concerned with his own pleasure and not at all concerned with consent. To me, this is a true description of a sadist. Nothing could be farther from the spirit of the typical dominant/top who engages in an erotic dance of power with the submissive. While some dominants choose to proclaim that they are sadists, I have noticed that even they will generally distance themselves from nonconsensual practices.

Since there are pathological sadists in the world, I prefer to leave this term to them and describe us as dominants or tops because the terms are more neutral and less limited. After all, people are confused enough by BDSM play. We dont need to make the distinction more difficult.

Do not be fooled by my choice of the word "play" for what goes on is BDSM. As any mother knows, play is inherently dangerous. Who among us survived through childhood without a cut or painful scrape? For this reason, I will never describe any BDSM activity as "safe." I recently heard of a submissive who suffered a fatal heart attack while cleaning his mistress toilet, an activity which would have normally been quite safe but was rendered fatal by the intense excitement he felt fulfilling his fantasy. A lady of my acquaintance suffered a dislocated shoulder while combining bondage with a truly mind-blowing orgasm.

Some BDSM undertakings are riskier than others. In this book, I will be taking care to differentiate the risky from the not-so-risky and to explain ways to minimize the risk inherent in any of them.

The truth about most BDSM movies and books is that many things that are shown or talked about are extremely dangerous. True, many movies and a few books have a short legalistic warning against trying to duplicate what is shown, but such a generic warning is little help for someone trying to find out how to do it right.

Previously, I mentioned the terms dominant and top. These are terms to describe two overlapping kinds of play. A dominant may use both physical and psychological components to play with his or her partner. A top applies physical stimulation to the bottom without requiring a complementary submission on the bottoms part.

The best illustration I can provide of a top/bottom scene took place several years ago. I was watching a novice top whipping a bottom I had played with several times. After a few minutes, she pushed herself back from the wall she had been leaning against, turned around and took the whip out of the surprised tops hand, handed it to me and said, "John, show him how I like to be whipped." There was no submission here. It was simply one person applying stimulation to another, a top and a bottom.

I write from my own point of view, that of a male heterosexual dominant. However, I sought assistance from several of my sister dominants and tops and have tried to provide the information women who work with men need. In addition, a number of male and female submissives have provided valuable and, sometimes, vital insights which, I have included.

A good motto for any dominant: NO UNINTENTIONAL PAIN. I hope this book will help you and your partner find exciting and creative things that you can do in an atmosphere of relative safety and complete consensuality. Ive been playing BDSM games for almost thirty years and seriously studying the art for more than a decade. This book is the distilled essence of that study and experience.

You will find the vertical pronoun "I" scattered throughout the book. Although an overweening ego may be in some way responsible, my primary intent is to emphasize that many of the comments in this book are my opinion and are fit subject for debate or refutation. I hope others will carry this orderly and ethical approach to the art of BDSM to greater heights than I can manage.

The Loving Dominant is intended for a wide audience. My primary goal is to reach novice dominants, or those who feel they are dominants, and help them overcome the psychological barriers to undertaking such a politically incorrect activity. I also want to show them techniques that can be used to bring pleasure to their submissives and themselves. While some of the activities I write about may not interest tops, much of the technique sections should prove valuable.

Experienced dominants may have largely overcome the discomfort of violating conventional sexual rules and will be familiar with many of the techniques I describe. However, the most experienced of us gets in an occasional rut. Most experienced dominants will find some new ideas here, and reading about what others do in the field may get the old excitement back and inspire new heights.

While I have written this book for dominants, I sincerely hope that submissives and those who feel they might enjoy being submissive read it. They can gain an insight into "how the other half lives," and it may give submissives the courage to act on their needs and desires.

Other individuals may have had the desire to experience BDSM, but lacking the proper words, may have been unable to verbalize or visualize their yearnings.

In addition, I hope that some copies of this book fall into the hands of the general public. Too often their perceptions of BDSM people are shaped by sensationalized media stories and pornography. The truth may not be as shocking, but I hope it is still interesting. To those readers, I am "defending my perversion." In fact, you may feel that some of the anti- BDSM positions I try to refute are extreme, but I assure you they are not straw men set up by me to be knocked down. Every one of them represents a real point of view, often with a vociferous group behind it.

Although I have included a highly personal and opinionated glossary at the end of this book, I feel this is an appropriate place to go over some confusing terms. For example, throughout the book, I use the word "scene" to mean two different, related things. "The scene" is an umbrella term for all BDSM activities and the people who take part in them. On the other hand, "A scene" is what takes place when a dominant or a top and a submissive or a bottom (or any combination) get together and play. Thus, I might write, "In the scene, it is considered unconscionable to ignore a safeword," referring to the umbrella term, or, "When you are doing a scene, safety is of primary importance," referring to a specific activity. People may also refer to living the scene. This usually means that they attempt to maintain their BDSM persona on a 24-hour-a-day basis, but it can also mean simply that the person is serious about his or her participation in BDSM.

The most important word in the BDSM vocabulary is "safe-word." This is a word or phrase that serves as a signal that things have become unbearable. Common safewords are "red light" and "mercy." In general, we do not use words like "stop" or "no" because many submissives increase their enjoyment by play acting that they are not in a voluntary situation. Screaming and begging turns them on. However, in a top/bottom scene, "stop" is a perfectly valid safeword. One can even use Lady Greens, "If you dont stop right now, when I get loose Im going to rip your balls off." In short any sufficiently unequivocal signal is an acceptable safeword.


Input:
  The next section should discuss the varied and flexible nature of BDSM practices, which can range from subtle and intellectual to intense and physical. It should emphasize that there is no one right way to practice BDSM and that what matters is what works for the specific individuals involved.

The section should highlight the different roles dominants and submissives can take on, such as stern and strict or loving and caring, and how submissives can adopt different personas in their scenes. It should also mention that submissives don't have to pretend to be unwilling or reluctant.

The section should describe various attempts to categorize BDSM practices, such as Diana Vera's 9 levels of submission and Libby's 3 levels of submission. These categorizations are not hierarchical but rather different approaches that individuals can choose from based on their preferences and needs.

The section should end by inviting readers to explore and find their own paths in the diverse and flexible world of BDSM, where they can pursue their unique fantasies and desires in a consensual and safe manner.

Response:
All The Colors of Kinkiness

People often talk about BDSM as if it were some sort of monolithic activity, like accounting or poker. (My apologies to accountants or poker players. I know better, but the line was too good to pass up.) In fact, the umbrella of consensual transfer of power covers an astonishing variety of acts, attitudes, degrees of commitment and extremes of kinkiness. BDSM or "The Scene" is like a very liberal Chinese restaurant. You can take as many, or as few, items as you want from Column A, B, and so on.

Each couple can decide which activities bring them the most pleasure. Some couples savor a highly intellectual BDSM that can be so subtle that even someone observing their scenes would be unaware that anything kinky is going on. Others enjoy a level of stimulation sufficient to horrify many observers. Still others appreciate elaborate psychodrama that may or may not include stimulation. The only people who can determine what is right for you and your partner are the two of you. There is no right or wrong way to do BDSM. It is also important to recognize that "intense" is not the same as "good." The two spectrums are unrelated. Two people sitting together and whispering can be having just as satisfying a scene as two others amid slashing whips and full-throated screams. It is what that particular couple wants and needs that determines the appropriateness of a scene.

Individual styles can also vary widely. Some dominants like to project a harsh, stern demeanor and keep the caring sensitivity carefully hidden. Others cherish the role of loving guide and protector. A scene can be as serious as a religious ritual, or it can be a laughing, giggling frolic.

Submissives, too, project a broad range of images to the world. Some, particularly men, like to maintain a passive, stoic image that can be frustrating to a dominant or a top looking for guidance. One female dominant complained in frustration, "How in the hell can I have any fun if I cant tell if he is?" Of course, others value and encourage that sort of a show of unruffled endurance.

Some submissives say they can only really let go when they have intentionally adopted a role. In effect, they create an internal psychodrama in which they are a captured secret agent, molested peasant maid or blackmailed debutante.

Ann, an Atlanta submissive, makes a point of distinguishing her "uppity submissive" from what people in the scene call a SAM (Smart Assed Masochist). While the SAM tries to "top from the bottom," that is, to control all aspects of the scene, Anns uppity submissive is more likely to signal her eagerness for stimulation by pinching the dominants bottom in passing or looking up with innocent eyes and asking, "Is that as hard as you can hit?"

Of course, bottoms dont have to make any such distinction. The essence of a top/bottom scene is giving and receiving "pain" and no pretense of unwillingness or reluctance is necessary.

There have been numerous attempts to examine the various approaches to BDSM. One of the most successful of these was detailed by Diana Vera, writing in The Lesbian S/M Safety Manual. Based on her experience and observations she described nine levels of submission. These range from a kinky sensualism in which everything revolves around the submissives needs, through play submission where the submissive gives up control but the stimulation is erotic and pleasing to both. All the way at the other end of the spectrum is consensual slavery where the slave exists solely for the dominants pleasure. This short piece is intriguing reading for anyone who is interested in thinking about submission as well as actively submitting. However, I caution that while it may look like a hierarchy, it is simply a description of various play styles. One may try several, but one should not think that there is any progression involved. A better way of looking at it would be as little boxes arranged on a tabletop. One can fit in one box or another, but none of the boxes are better than any other.

Another way of looking at conceptualizing the scene comes from my own dear Libby. Instead of considering the severity of the activities or the portion of the day they take up, her approach examines the emotional intensity of the submission and the degree of trust put forward by the submissive. In her section, "A Submissive Looks At Submission," later in this book, she goes into detail about her three levels of submission: fantasy, clarity and transparency.

Inspired by Libbys format, another submissive woman offered her three categories. Unlike Libbys, these are not in a hierarchical structure but, instead, are based on the needs of the submissive. The first is "stimulus driven." Here, the submissive is taking part because he or she is seeking out a specific stimulus, like the pain of whipping or the confinement of bondage.

The second category is "relationship driven." In this, the main desire is for a relationship, often with a particular person. Individuals in this kind of relationship take glory in the multichannel communication between the submissive and the dominant and enjoy the richness of the information flow.

The final category is "fantasy driven" where the submissive seeks to make a fantasy or fantasies real. Sometimes, this is accomplished by living through the fantasy; however, others find satisfaction in finding an individual who shares his or her fantasy and no specific action needs to take place.

However you choose to play, welcome to a land of fantasy in the midst of reality. Here, perhaps more than in any other aspect of your life, you are free to choose your own route to ecstasy.


Input:
 Write a section titled "Are You a Loving Dominant?" that explores whether someone is suited for a loving dominant role in BDSM. Begin by acknowledging that it can be difficult to determine due to societal misconceptions and problematic representations in media.

The section should include a series of questions for self-reflection, focusing on key characteristics of loving dominance, such as prioritizing mutual pleasure, a willingness to work hard in the relationship, a desire to control for the benefit of both partners, and having empathy and concern for others' well-being. It should also caution against motivations rooted in revenge or pure self-gratification.

The questions should help readers differentiate between healthy and unhealthy desires for control, emphasizing the importance of ethical and consensual practices in BDSM.

End the section by affirming that having nonconsensual or harmful fantasies is not inherently problematic as long as they remain in the realm of fantasy and are not acted upon in real life.

Write this section in a clear, straightforward style, using an informal and approachable tone.

Response:
Are You a Loving Dominant?

Well, are you? It may seem like an easy question to answer, but it can be more difficult than you realize. Sadly, in our society, domination, sadism, cruelty and brutality have become confused and intertwined.

Crude, unrealistic fiction has made the situation worse. Publishers have found that to reach the broadest possible audience, they must include themes that are repugnant to many. Because consensual, loving BDSM in fiction is so rare, those who are interested in these themes must pick through thousands of pages, like looking for jewels in a dungheap, to find sections they find provocative, while other readers wallow in the nonconsensual brutality.

The following is a series of questions that you need only to answer in your own soul. Be honest with yourself and look deeply into those answers to see if this scene is really for you.

Do you get as much pleasure or more from erotically exciting your partner as from your own enjoyment of the sexual act?

If this is true, you are likely to be a good dominant. The essence of this kind of play is to take anothers power and then use it for mutual pleasure. If you already seek to maximize your partners gratification, you have a mindset that will adapt well to BDSM.

Do you want an easy relationship with you as the unquestioned boss?

If yes, then BDSM is unlikely to be for you. A BDSM relationship is more, not less, complex than one that is purely vanilla. This is because BDSM relationships generally have all the components of a vanilla relationship, plus those that are unique to BDSM.

It is common to hear dominants talk about how hard they have to work. This is because in exchange for the power that is given us, we must find ways of using that power for the benefit and pleasure of both participants. At the same time, because of the trust given us, we must be very sure that nothing we do is harmful to anyone in the relationship. This kind of careful balancing act certainly isnt attractive to someone looking for an easy ride.

Have you been in an abusive relationship and would like to "turn the tables" on someone like the person who abused you?

This is another rough start. A significant number of people in BDSM have been in abusive relationships, and some of them consciously use BDSM psychodramas to help them work through the negative feelings that resulted from these experiences.

However, revenge is a poor motivation for such an intimate relationship, and it is likely to result in further damage to your self-esteem.

Why do you want to control another person?

This is a sticky one. Film star Vanessa del Rio once told me one of her earliest fantasies was of having a group of tiny people in the palm of her hand. She loved to imagine that she had complete control of them, but, to me, the key was that she imagined that she would use this power to make them happy.

The desire to help, to enhance or to make others happy is common among dominants. This may be why so many dominants are in the teaching and helping professions: medicine, social work, religion. Other-centered people make good dominants. Self-centered people often find that the strain of the responsibilities inherent in a BDSM relationship is overwhelming.

In a consensual relationship, control applied purely to self-gratification is a self-limiting proposition. Submissives who do not get what they are looking for are unlikely to remain in a relationship for very long.

Do you have fantasies involving nonconsensual activities or harm to another?

This isnt as serious as you may believe. The trick is being able to keep the fantasies inside your head and separate from the scene you are playing with another person. Most of us have large, hairy monsters in the dark corners of our mind. What separates the civilized from the uncivilized is how tight a leash we keep on them.

Having fantasies is all right; acting on them isnt. Aside from being totally against the ethical principles of the scene, such "play" can get you locked up with other people who believe in nonconsensual play, and they may be bigger than you are.


Input:
 Write a section exploring the motivations behind BDSM practices, specifically, why people choose to play dominant or submissive roles.

The section should begin by mentioning that there are various theories and explanations, ranging from classic psychoanalysis to modern psychology, but ultimately, it's up to each individual to determine their motivations.

The theories mentioned should include Freud's theories on sadism and masochism, Fromm's societal explanations, and Mahler's object relations theory. The section should also mention the recent changes in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) that no longer considers BDSM practices as a disorder unless they cause distress or impairment to an individual's life.

The section should also explore the perspectives of submissives and dominants and their reasons for choosing their roles. For submissives, the explanation could include the idea of a vacation from responsibility, a contrast to their everyday lives, or dealing with past traumas. For dominants, the explanation could include the pleasure from their partner's pleasure, the feeling of being in complete control, or the ability to manage every aspect of the situation.

The writing style should be informative, balanced, and open-minded, acknowledging that there are multiple explanations and everyone's motivations are unique. The section should avoid judgment and encourage readers to explore their own reasons for their BDSM practices.

The section should end with a suggested reading list and an invitation for readers to contemplate their own motivations and understandings.

Response:
Dig All Those Crazy People

Why? Why do people do this? Why do people love this? Some of us are fascinated with the genesis of these feelings and enjoy searching for the root cause of our desires. Others, myself included, hold with Alexander Pope that, "Like following life though creatures you dissect, you lose it in the moment you detect it."

Sometimes, I suspect that too close an examination can actually destroy the feelings being studied, and I recognize that an understanding of causes is not necessary for enjoyment. I have only the vaguest idea of why chocolate ice cream tastes good, but that ignorance decreases neither my enjoyment nor my consumption.

Ill admit my sexual tastes are more unusual than love for chocolate ice cream. Still, no one has done deep analyses of why some people like chocolate sauce on their pizza. People who love it pack the Hersheys syrup on trips to Pizza Hut, and the rest of us avert our eyes and shudder a bit or maybe borrow a dollop and see how it tastes on the pepperoni. They are simply classified as weird or, if they are rich enough, eccentric.

Psychologists, psychiatrists, social science theorists, theologians and feminists havent lined up to find answers for this chocolate "perversion," for people carrying handkerchiefs they never use in their coat pockets or for voting Republican. These are simply "trite eccentricities" unworthy of study.

To make the question even more complex, the language of experience is not the same as the language of classification. Race car drivers dont study physics, although they may pick up a good bit of it in passing. They drive. They experience. They dont think about the underlying mechanics but about the feel of the car and the track.

People have studied poems since before Aristotle wrote Poetics. Their reactions still come down to "This poem speaks to me."

However, some enjoy sharpening their Aristotelian knives and having at "the search for why." If you tend toward this approach, I dedicate this search for causes to you.

Some give a simple answer to "Why?" "It is fun, enjoyable." "We like to do it." Unfortunately, this kind of simplicity isnt looked upon kindly by the members of the Ivory-Tower Brigade, who glory in philosophical head- knocking and counting dancing-angels.

Unfortunately, all too many of these deep thinkers have largely fixated on sadistic monsters and masochistic victims. Like Shakespeares Horatio, they have failed to realize that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in their philosophy. Neither loving domination or sensual submission is part of the paradigms they develop. To admit that these exist might knock their carefully constructed houses of cards askew. To make matters worse, the competing theories are all different, and most of them, are mutually exclusive.

I was strongly tempted to exclude much of the psychological theory on the grounds that it is inconsequential to the people most actively involved. Unfortunately, I have been repeatedly and forcefully reminded that anyone attempting to discuss BDSM with a learned audience or with doctors is going get presented with these spurious explanations.

I suppose that it is better you encounter them here, amid interpretation and exegesis, than to have them flung into your face with an implication that they are, somehow, revealed truth. Just take a firm grip on your temper and read on.

Theories of sadism and masochism

In the labeling craze of the 19th century, when scientists still clung to the mystical concept that to label something was to control it, D.R. von Krafft-Ebing came up the terms "sadism" and "masochism" in his book _Psychopathia Sexualis._ This learned tome was a sort of Sears and Roebuck catalog of perversion, listing just about everything that two or more people could do together to get their individual or collective rocks off. Krafft-Ebing must have had a good laugh on thrill-seekers perusing his volume; he put the boring stuff in English and the good parts in Latin.

As most people in the scene know, the term "sadism" came from the writings of the Marquis Donatien Alphonse Francois de Sade and masochism from those of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch. Both de Sades writings (including _Philosophy in the Bedroom, Justine, Juliet, Twenty Days at Sodom)_ and Sacher-Masochs _Venus in Furs_ are still hot-selling items today. A quick glance at any of de Sades work will show you why many dominants are infuriated when they are accused of being sadists. Nonconsensuality was the order of the day for the Marquis.

Krafft-Ebing got it almost right with submission when he defined masochism as:

_"A peculiar perversion of the psychical sexual life in which the person affected, in sexual feeling and thought, is controlled by the idea of being completely and unconditionally subject to the will of a person of the opposite sex; of being treated by this person as by a master…"_

Aside from the near miss of failing to recognize that submission is independent of hetero- or homo-erotic orientation and throwing in the term perversion, he came fairly close to how many submissives would describe themselves. However, after that good start, he ruined it by adding three words, "humiliated and abused," at the end. With just three words, he narrowed the definition to include only the small percentage of submissives who do enjoy humiliation, and convicted the master, a person who is doing what the submissive wants done, of being abusive.

Krafft-Ebing was even less kind to dominants and tops, who he implicitly lumps with sadists.

_"Sadism is the experience of sexually pleasurable sensations (including orgasm) produced by acts of cruelty, bodily punishment inflicted by ones own person or when witnessed in others, be they animals or human beings. It may consist of an innate desire to humiliate, hurt, wound or even destroy the others in order thereby to create sexual pleasure in ones self."_

Unfortunately, aside from some amusing — or horrifying — examples (depending on your point of view), Krafft-Ebing is almost useless to anyone looking for insights. Sadism is simply seen as "a pathological intensification of the male sexual character," and females are seen as anxious, irritable and weak. (I wonder how Mistress Mir, Goddess Sia or any of the other myriad dominant women feel about that?)

Freud, the father of modern psychology, took the ball and ran with it. Not one to do things by halves, he came up with three separate and sometimes contradictory theories. In "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality," he claimed that sadism is a component part of the sexual instinct, an "instinct for mastery" that is inherently masculine, and masochism is "nothing but inverted sadism." Freud declared that sadism and masochism are interchangeable. Masochism is only sadism that has turned inward upon the self.

Sadists behave as they do, according to this theory, because, during childhood, they were trapped in the anal stage of development, attempting to control the parent figure by releasing and withholding feces. (Does the term "crock of shit" come to mind?)

In his later essay, "A Child Being Beaten," Freud shifted the birth of sadomasochism to the childs first oedipal conflict and linked it with parental punishment and punishment fantasies. His argument was that the child links forbidden, sexual feelings with the fear of punishment. In effect, pain is the payment for pleasure.

With better footwork than a running back, Freud next feinted toward his first theory but then went wide and, in "The Economic Problem of Masochism," hypothesized that masochism, not sadism, is the primary component and linked it with the death instinct. For one thing, masochism, in his eyes, was necessary so that women could endure childbirth.

Eric Fromm, a leading light of the Frankfurt School, a group of German intellectuals who desperately tried to explain the rise of Nazism, moved the discussion of sadism and masochism from the individual, where Freud had staked his claim, to society, or at least to the individuals reaction to society. In The Fear of Freedom, Fromm postulated that freedom itself was frightening in that it caused intolerable loneliness and that individuals adopt various strategies to escape from it. He maintained that sadomasochists use control as such an escape hatch.

For example, masochists were described as consciously complaining about being weak, inferior and powerless, while at the same time seeking circumstances where these feelings were intensified.

Fromm argued that the masochists, failing repeatedly at being strong and independent, became even more weak and passive to reduce the conflict between what they want and what they could accomplish, like someone who says, "If I cant play perfect baseball, Ill become the team clown and everyone will think Im fucking up on purpose."

The sadists, on the other hand, were seen as recognizing their inferiority and powerlessness and seeking to control others to gain an ersatz strength in place of real strength. In effect, he saw us as failed admirals playing with toy boats in the bathtub.

Jean Genet, the author, drew on Freuds third field goal attempt in his philosophical classic, _Being and Nothingness,_ where he argued that both sadism and masochism were responses to a fear of mortality, of death. In his play, _The Balcony,_ lawyers and other powerful individuals played out masochistic fantasies in a surreal house of domination. The theme implies that they are doing this to strike a psychic balance and atone for their sadistic behavior in the real world. Its as if they were saying, "I hit him; now you hit me, and everyone will be even."

A Swedish psychiatrist, Lars Ullerstam, supported Jean Genets hypothesis regarding masochism as an exculpatory behavior. However, he pointed out that the presence of powerful, rich men in such BDSM brothels may also be because they, unlike their less powerful counterparts, can afford to pay the fees involved. Thus, it may be that the overwhelming number of lawyers who dominatrixes report seeing as clients, are not expiating sins particular to this profession. They may simply be making an obscene amount of money and, thus, be able to afford the dominatrixs service.

Jessica Benjamin, in her _Powers of Desire,_ alleged that both sadistic and masochistic behavior were fueled by a need for recognition. The masochist suffers to be recognized as worthwhile by the sadist while the sadist subjugates another person to force recognition from him or her. Benjamin, on the other hand, gets her recognition by writing books.

During the conference that followed publication of the _Playboy Foundation Report_ in the 1970s, researchers had a chance to differentiate sadism from dominance. W.B. Pomeroy described a segment of a filmed scene which depicted a waxing. He had noticed that the "sadist" was watching, not just the place where the wax was falling, but also the expression on his partners face. When this sadist detected that she was getting close to the edge, he raised the candle to reduce the intensity of the stimulation. Pomeroy commented, "It suddenly occurred to me that the masochist was almost literally controlling the sadists hand."

Sadly, a less imaginative colleague pooh-poohed the idea and insisted that "genuine" sadists are not interested in a willing partner. (Im personally glad this myopic soul was not present at the discovery of penicillin. He probably would have thrown out the moldy bread.)

Working in what is known as the Object Relations School of psychology, Margaret Mahler attempted to explain sadism and masochism by looking at a childs early relationship to objects. Rather than placing the critical age in puberty as did Freud, she held that such desires begin before the age of four.

In sort of a Cliffs Notes explanation, Ill just say that object relations theory says that children go through a series of phases in which they seek either greater independence or greater reassurance. Mahler argued that both masochism and sadism come from a failure to have these needs satisfied at the proper time. In effect, the person is trapped repeating the critical phase in hopes of "doing better this time.

For example, she believed a sadist may have been unable to form a satisfactory relationship with his or her mother and turns to sadism in an attempt to make a controlled relationship in which he or she can try to recreate that relationship. On the other hand, the masochist was able to form a satisfactory bond but was unable to break it at the appropriate time. Thus, he or she is seeking a relationship from which a clean break is possible.

There has been good news in recent years. When this book was first written in the early 1990s, the primary reference for the American Psychiatric Association was the DSM IIIr (Diagnostic Statistical Manual, third edition, revised). This "learned tome" was not at all kind to us, holding that to seek either sexual submission or dominance was a treatable disorder. (Of course, they termed it either Sexual Masochism or Sexual Sadism, bringing in a different kettle of fish.) Interestingly enough, according to DSM IIIr, it was all right to simply have these fantasies, but seeking them out that made one a candidate for the place with the latex wallpaper.

A person could dream of going to a loving leather-clad woman. He could burn in his bed each night with unslaked desire for the hug of the rope and the kiss of the whip. However, one trip down to Mistress Harshs House of Loving Leather made him a potential resident of the laughing academy.

Intent was immaterial. In the view of the authors, someone who pleased his or her lover with a bit of erotic spanking was lumped right along with a creep setting fire to kittens.

Fortunately, through the efforts of kink activists and kink-friendly therapists lead by the author/ activist Race Bannon, DSM IV presented us in a much better light. Now, to be treatable, we must either be disturbed by our desires or have those desires take over our worlds to the point where they disrupt out daily lives.

Even Madonna has a theory about why we like what we like. In an interview with _Newsweek_ magazine, she suggested that her sexuality may stem from her Catholic upbringing and is quoted as saying, "When I was growing up, there were certain things people did for penance; I know people who slept on coat hangers or kneeled on uncooked rice on the floor…and as for me, I think somehow things got really mixed up. There was some ecstasy involved in that.

"And the whole idea of crucifixion – a lot of that, the idea of being tied up. It is surrendering yourself to someone. Im fascinated by it. I mean, there is a lot of pain-equals- pleasure in the Catholic church, and that is also associated with bondage and S&M."

From the index cards of a 19th century cataloger to the musings of the Material Girl herself, this is a sample from the varied buffet table of psychological explanations of BDSM – or to be more precise, Sadism and Masochism. You are free to pick and choose as it pleases you.

Suggested Reading:

_S &M: Studies in Sadomasochism_ (Thomas Weinberg ed.) _Different Loving_ (Brame, Brame & Jacobs)

Why would someone want to be submissive?

For myself, I believe that many submissives are strong people who are taking a vacation from their responsibilities. By giving their considerable power to others, they benefit from the aphrodisiac of contrast. To shift, willingly, from powerful to powerless gives their libidos extraordinary jolts.

This erotic nature of contrast may explain why, during the many years I spent in Asia, I never encountered what I considered a truly submissive woman. Most women in Asian cultures are steeped in submission; it is not a choice, nor is it a change. For me, the fire was missing from their submission. They got no more of a sensual charge from their submission than American women get from signaling a cab or buying a meal.

Many of the submissives I have talked to find that their attraction to the scene is based largely on this contrast between having power and control and releasing themselves to simply experience powerlessness at the hands of another whom they trust. Almost everyone knows the sheer joy of coming home after a hard days work and slipping off the wingtips or high heels and putting on a well-worn pair of slippers. Many submissives simply carry it a step further and slip off the entire business-mandated Type A personality to submit to a trusted dominant.

There is a misunderstanding on the part of some wannabe doms and many in the vanilla public about the essence of submission. Part of the fault is our phrasing. We speak of "a submissive person," and that is not precisely correct. A better phrase would be "a person who is submissive to…" This understandable error is created and compounded by playacting in the cyber world and misleading plots in pornographic novels.

In the real world the nature of the submissive is often quite different from what is seen in these limited purviews of fiction and fantasy. This is particularly true in the case of submissive women. These ladies are not submissive to just any individual who happens to want to play as a dominant or as a top.

A woman who has elected to give her submissive side permission to play is, in my opinion, stronger and more courageous than those of her vanilla sisters who have that side and do not let it show. Such a woman is not likely to submit herself to anyone who just happens to own a whip.

Far from simply waiting for a dominant or top to appear, these women seek and select the person to whom they will submit. In turning over their power to this individual (or, more rarely, these individuals), the submissive woman forms a bond that is often stronger than that of a conventional sexual dyad.

By the same token, depending on the personal style of both the submissive and the dominant, the submissive woman in such an affiliation may be quite active and aggressive outside of the scene portion of the relationship.

Submissive men are both more complex and simpler than their female counterparts. Either because of the nature of the male/female dichotomy, such as early childhood conditioning and the nature of our society, many male submissives are much less selective of whom they submit to. While a submissive female is a rare sight in the BDSM clubs, submissive males in search of a master or mistress make up the bulk of any given nights attendance.

Some submissives report say that they have chosen their role because they found that the strength and control they have in their vanilla lives interfere with their sensual enjoyment. A number of years ago, I had a relationship with a brilliant and successful psychologist who had to be bound and helpless in order to reach orgasm.

Her explanation was consistent and cogent. Before discovering bondage, she found that, as she approached orgasm during intercourse, an anxiety would appear that would quite overwhelm the building passion. This anxiety did not appear during masturbation. Examining the anxiety in a cool and detached manner as if it were a symptom reported by a client, she concluded that she had been socialized to please and cater to her partner during sex. She concluded that her subconscious mind, recognizing that during climax she would be out of control, was sabotaging the orgasm.

Her solution was to make the desire-to-please irrelevant. Because when she was bound she could not do anything either to please or displease her partner, she found that bondage allowed her, in her own words, "to wallow in sensation." When she was tied, she was able to reach orgasm repeatedly.

An alternate explanation, offered by another member of the psychological community, suggested that the root cause was, instead, a deep-seated guilt about non-marital sex. In effect, her subconscious was punishing her for engaging in "sinful" behavior. In this scenario, the bondage "gave her permission" to enjoy sex because it wasnt her "fault."

_A submissive man allowed that guilt did play a significant factor in his love of bondage. As he put it, "It is difficult to get past the Calvinist idea that feeling good isnt enough._ _There must be some greater purpose, some tangible benefit for society." Being bound and helpless freed him from the need to search for that benefit._

Other submissives have said that they have found, in loving submission and certain pleasure/pain activities, a way of coming to terms with legacies of emotional pain. For example, it is not uncommon for a submissive to be drawn to recreating scenes of abuse or rape with a loving partner acting the part of the aggressor. While, on the surface, this might be seen as counterproductive, those I have spoken to are unanimous in declaring that the psychodrama helped them "get control of the trauma."

The logic seems to be that the original act left the victim with a sense of powerlessness, but reenacting it in an environment of BDSM, where he or she can set the parameters of the action and even abruptly halt the scene with a safeword, gives a feeling of empowerment.

I should note here that these submissive individuals, both male and female, initiated the idea of using a scene psychodrama in this way. I would strongly caution any dominant not to coerce a submissive into such scenes with the thought of providing a sort of home-brew therapy. The dynamics of control seem to indicate that a suggestion of this sort must originate from the individual most directly affected.

Other submissives report that BDSM helps them deal with emotional pain by allowing them to "go away," to escape into the intense sensuality and endorphinin- engendered haze where memories and even rational thought becomes secondary. This is often referred to as "subspace," but, as with much in this world, the criteria vary greatly for what "subspace" actually is and how one gets there.

Of course, this going-away isnt unique to BDSM. I doubt that there are many of us who have not set down an engrossing book to discover we were cramped and ached from the position in which we had been sitting. The book literally took us away from our bodies.

A friend who is active in the arts observes that the first five minutes of a play or musical presentation may be accompanied by coughs and other noises from the audience. Soon, these vanish as the performance lifts the audience from the mundane sensations of their bodies to a higher plane where noises from tickles in the throat and squeaks from uncomfortable chairs cannot follow.

When these submissives talk about their use of BDSM to deal with their pain, its not clear whether they are describing a benefit or a cause. Did the emotional pain lead the person to choose a submissive role in BDSM play? While this is possible, I could equally persuasively argue that the person was already submissive and was simply using the BDSM scene to deal with the existing pain.

Another need or cause cited by some submissives is that in their early lives they sealed away their emotions. In some cases, this was the result of abuse; in others, it was because the family ignored or concealed emotion. As one submissive woman put it, "By being submissive to my master and relinquishing all control to him, we are slowly tearing down the protective walls I built because of some things which happened in my childhood. For me, BDSM is a way of confronting my fears and allowing myself to grow emotionally. What I find most appealing about BDSM are the emotional and psychological aspects – although the physical is also fun. Would I still find it appealing if my childhood had been different? I dont know, but I doubt it."

Another woman commented that before she took part in BDSM activities she had been very passive and stuck in vanilla relationships. However, after experiencing the intense communications necessary to make a BDSM relationship work, she found herself being more forthright.

Is the increased ability to communicate simply a benefit of the scene, or did the blocking these women experienced cause their submissive feelings? Did the blocking and the feelings have the same original source? Obviously, there isnt any clear, single answer.

Why would someone want to be dominant?

Some individuals take the inverse of my relaxing- from-power explanation of submissive behavior to state that dominants, then, must be weak individuals who need to take the power from others to experience a contrast to their helplessness.

Aside from the knee-jerk reaction that this aint so, the available evidence doesnt seem to fit. Before I took to writing full time, I was the vice president of a successful market research company. Many of my fellow dominants in and out of the major scene organizations hold stressful, high-pressure jobs and do very well.

_If our motivation isnt the reverse of the submissives motivation, what is it? I have come to the conclusion that the essence of what motivates me are two interlocking items. One factor is that I get a tremendous charge from my partners pleasure. BDSM is a wonderful way to get someone off more intensely than most vanilla people can imagine._

Many teachers and guides say that one of their major rewards is to see someone excited by a new idea or an unexpected vista. Having been a college professor, I know exactly what they mean, and I can see a definite kinship between that feeling and the feeling I get watching a woman in a paroxysm of pleasure. There is a feeling of accomplishment knowing I have helped someone climb higher and go further than he or she could have gone alone.

Another factor in my attraction to the dominant role is that the BDSM situation allows me to be in almost complete control. In todays modern world, this is a situation that is becoming more and more difficult to attain. In fact, the more powerful one becomes, the more it seems that he or she is buffeted by collateral factors and outside forces.

For example, to a naive observer, I may seemed to be in complete control in my office. However, I have to depend on my employees doing their jobs correctly. I have to depend on suppliers to be on the ball. Much of what I seem to control I really "managed," a much less satisfactory situation. In BDSM, I am in complete control, to fail or succeed as my talents and imagination permit. I control every factor, and I do not have to depend on anyone. Any object I depend on (whips, ropes, suspension gear) I can test and retest until I am certain it works. Being in that kind of control pleases me intensely.

This, of course, may not be the true cause of these feelings. No mirror is completely accurate and ego is a subtle distorter of fact. I can only urge you to look into your own hearts and, most importantly, enjoy.