The Control Dichotomy in BDSM

My wife and I have been "swingers" for several years now and along the way of enjoying our sexual adventure exploration, we've discovered that she has a slight submissive streak to her. It's nothing deep and certainly isn't a focus of our play, but we've come to realize that she certainly isn't the instigator, doesn't take the initiative and generally enjoys providing sexual service. We've experimented with some light bondage, spanking, nipple over-stimulation (different from nipple torture) and even just simple obedience on her part. What we've come to realize is that there are as many variations of domination and submission as there are shades of gray and sometimes, if you pay attention, you realize that the person in control -- the "dominant" -- isn't really at all.

Bear in mind as you read through this that it's based solely on our experiences and others may have entirely different experiences. I'm going to cite a couple of people I've known at various intensities of the BDSM lifestyle and at least one popular movie. I know you all can guess what it is.

Hear that weird scooby-doo going back in time music as we travel back... to the turn of the millennium. The year is 2000 and I'm working in an IT setting among quite a large demographic of people. There's the boss lady who is into being tied up and spanked. There's the assistant boss who is bi-sexual and willing to try anything new. There's the homosexual install tech who is flamboyant about his sexual proclivities. There was a host of "straight" people and the one guy who called himself a monk because he felt sex was too much of a diversion from his one true love: online gaming. Another install tech was affectionately called "Kitten" by everyone who knew her; she wore a collar and made it clear that she was owned by her Sir. Then there was the redhead in a different department who made no secret about the fact that when she took her annual Caribbean vacations she spent the week as a hooker working bars wherever she visited.

Out of all those people, you'd think that only Kitten and the boss lady (who liked being tied up and spanked) had anything to do with the BDSM lifestyle, right? You'd be as wrong as I was when I thought that. Sure, they fit somewhere in the stereotypical BDSM lifestyle, but...

So did the gay guy who only was homosexual to men who dominated him, and he was dominant in his rare heterosexual relationships. The bi-sexual woman was submissive to women but aggressive and forceful with the men she played with. The redhead part-time hooker was NEVER submissive during her week away, often playing the role of a dominatrix, but 100% submissive to her husband when she was home. Getting back to the two most obvious involved in the BDSM lifestyle, let's take a closer look at their preferences and outlooks.

Kitten was owned and collared by her Sir. That's how she referred to him about 95% of the time although she'd also call him by his given name. She had three children from a previous marriage and all of her children were aware of her lifestyle. Kitten considered herself 100% "Sir's" property and did as she was told, with whomever he told her to. She was shared with and serviced men and women at Sir's command. With the men she was usually very submissive and obedient. With the women she was more dominant and often controlled them to insure that they served her Sir properly. She worked hard to keep him happy and give him no reason to punish her, but if she earned punishment, she took it with pride, knowing it was what he expected and what he felt was in her best interest. She was quite open about having a safe word, and if she uttered it, EVERYTHING stopped until she was safe and comfortable in whatever setting. If she was being shared and the playmate DIDN'T stop at the utterance of her safe word, then her Sir's primary function was to protect her; to insure that her safety and comfort was immediately insured. Interestingly, after my work relationship with her had ended, we stayed in touch as friends and about a year later he actually branded her as his property. She celebrated that day like it was the wedding most women dream of. I was happy for them even though I couldn't imagine being either of them. Looking back, I still find it interesting that he spent hours every day controlling her behavior and shaping who she was... and with a single word she could put a halt to everything, anywhere, anytime. In other words, his control only existed because she permitted it. So which was really in control?

The boss lady who enjoyed being tied up and spanked once told me that it was about releasing responsibility. As a female manager in a major corporation responsible for millions of dollars of budget and overseeing 100+ employees, she often found herself stressed. When she went home, she was a wife and mother of three -- more responsibilities. Her husband was not into sex beyond vanilla relations but he was aware of her desire and need to be taken control of. Or, perhaps more precisely, for her to be in positions where she had surrendered 100% control. Being tied up and at the mercy of someone allowed her to simply exist in that moment and enjoy whatever was delivered. While naked and tied, she had no responsibility for anything at all. She enjoyed the sting of being spanked and it wasn't restricted to her butt. She liked having her thighs, ass, pussy and side-boob spanked. She enjoyed the discomfort of having her nipples pinched, pulled and twisted. She got off on enduring whatever her captor decided to do and, ultimately, being used as a sexual object for his/their pleasure. She too had a safe word and at the mere utterance of it, everything stopped and she was immediately released as quickly as possible. So, once again, we see that while she surrendered all control, she ultimately held all control.

I remember a time that I wrote a short story for her. The story was about a dominant man, but one who exercised more mental control and pressure than physical. He would set rules, and then point out when they weren't obeyed. Punishments were earned, as were rewards. It was an on-going mental game between he and the women who chose to submit to him. They almost took it as a challenge to never do anything "wrong" and he took it as a game to put them in positions where they did so without even realizing it... until he pointed it out. I took it as quite the compliment when the boss-lady told me I'd make a good dom.

Now, to that one popular movie: Fifty Shades of Gray. (Spoiler alert!) If you watch all three movies you realize that Anastasia originally submits to Christian out of attraction and curiosity. But she never submits completely and as the storyline progresses she gradually takes more and more control. At the end of the movies you hear Christian say that she is "topping from the bottom." But don't all submissives do that? They all ultimately have control; they simply choose not to exercise it until or unless it's necessary. The use of their safe word puts an immediate demand and control on the dominant.

Beyond the control issue, there are the challenges of responsibility. The dominant is responsible for the safety of the submissive as well as their sexual satisfaction, physical well-being, etc. To the extent that the submissive grants submission, the dominant has a proportionate responsibility for the submissive's well-being and care. Being the dominant takes more thought, more care, more concern and more effort. The submissive simply submits... or revokes submission with the utterance of a single word.

So, I'll ask again: Who is really in control?