ENTRIES:
A-D E-I J-M N-Q R-T U-Z
CONTRIBUTORS | BOOKLIST | LINKS | HELP
| the deviants' dictionary Sourcesheet Updated 20 June 1997 |
| Dynamics and Definitions |
| INTRO | FRAMES | INDEX
ENTRIES: A-D E-I J-M N-Q R-T U-Z
CONTRIBUTORS | BOOKLIST | LINKS | HELP |
This article was first posted on my personal website in June 1996 and is really the germ of what became the Deviants' Dictionary. It's very much a first stab at discussion, an uneasy mixture of literature survey and polemic, and I've changed my views somewhat since it was written, but I've left it largely intact. Comments and criticisms are more than welcomed.
Though many of us have no problems using terms like 'sadistic', 'masochistic' and 'sadomasochism' (SM), actually getting to grips with what we mean by them is fraught with problems. The terms themselves were first coined as categories of scientific psychology, passed into common parlance and were eventually appropriated and redefined by the people to whom they had originally been applied. In the process their meanings have multiplied and shifted - which is not surprising, considering they attempt to label the complex and ever-changing world of human sexual behaviour, where the most intimate individual feelings inter-react with the wider social world. Here I look informally at some of the ways these terms have been used, some of the difficulties associated with particular views of SM, and make a few suggestions about useful ways we might view the phenomenon of sadomasochism.
The origin of these terms is in the work of the late 19th century psychologist Richard von Krafft-Ebing, who identified them as distinct but related 'sexual anomalies'. In his Psychopathia Sexualis of 1885, he wrote that sadism is 'the experience of sexual pleasurable sensations (including orgasm) produced by acts of cruelty, bodily punishment inflicted on one's own person or when witnessed by others, be they animals or human beings...It may also consist of an innate desire to humiliate, hurt, wound or even destroy others in order thereby to create sexual pleasure in oneself.' Krafft-Ebing was also the first to recognise the difficulty of drawing the line between sadism and 'normal' sexual activity when he noted that most lovers engage in 'horseplay...just for fun' (1965:53).
Masochism, according to Krafft-Ebing, was where someone '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, humiliated and abused. This idea is coloured by lustful feeling; the masochist lives in fantasies, in which he creates situations of this kind and often attempts to realise them' (ibid: 86). Thus the terms are not entirely complementary: while sadism is linked to the actual infliction of pain, masochism has an element of fantasy generated by the masochist.
Both terms refer to literary figures. Sadism is named after the French writer and revolutionary Donatien Alphonse François de Sade (the Marquis de Sade), whose notorious works of fiction, such as Justine, Juliette and Les 120 journées de Sodome (The 120 Days of Sodom), written in the late 18th century, featured graphic depictions of extreme sexual cruelty. While Sade was undoubtedly aroused by the thought of such activities, his books are not straightforwardly pornographic but rather sophisticated satires directed at the hypocrisy and moral degeneration of France's then ruling class. His various imprisonments on charges related to assault on prostitutes were most likely politically motivated.
Masochism is derived from late 19th century novelist Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, whose best-known work, Venus in Furs, tells the story of a writer who signs a slave contract with a beautiful and cruel woman only to find himself handed over to the brutal attentions of her new lover. This book is far closer to our times and recognisably sadomasochistic from a modern perspective; like a number of subsequent works of SM pornography, it interestingly lacks any mention of genital sex. Sacher-Masoch was not the first to deal with such matters -- Victorian porn is packed full of physical punishment and flagellation -- but probably the first significant writer to dwell at length on the psychology of the would-be slave and to portray their particular package of desires as characterising them as an individual.
Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, took up Krafft-Ebing's terminology but saw the two phenomena as far more closely linked: 'He who experiences pleasure by causing pain to others is also capable of experiencing pain in sexual relations as pleasure. A sadist is simultaneously a masochist, though either the active or the passive side of the perversion may be more strongly developed in him' (1938:570). For Freud, sadism was primary, corresponding to 'an aggressive component of the sexual instinct which has become independent and exagerrated', and masochism, which is 'further removed from the normal sexual goal', must be derived from it 'by transformation' (ibid: 569).
Both these founding fathers of psychology treated sadism and masochism as individual predispositions towards inflicting or receiving cruelty or subjugation for sexual pleasure with no regard to how those predispositions may be realised in practise. And it was in this sense that the terms passed into common use, as referring to people who might satisfy their own desires in any way possible: the 'sadistic' concentration camp guard inflicting vile torments on unwilling victims, or the 'masochistic' housewife who secretly enjoys her relationship with an abusive husband.
Havelock Ellis was among the first to discuss sadism and masochism as mutually pleasurable activity. However, he narrowed both to the enjoyment of pain, for which he preferred the term algolagnia. 'The masochist desires to experience pain, but he generally desires that it should be inflicted in love; the sadist desires to inflict pain, but in some cases, if not in most, he desires that it should be felt as love' (1942 vol 1 part 2: 160). 'The sadist by no means wishes to exclude the victim's pleasure, and may even regard that pleasure as essential to his own satisfaction' (ibid: 166). Ellis insisted strongly upon the interconnectedness of the two 'manifestations': 'Sadism and masochism may be regarded as complementary emotional states; they can not be regarded as opposed states' (ibid: 159).
Ellis pointed the way to a more sociological view of SM in terms of an interactive sexual activity. This was the perspective developed by the anthropologist Paul Gebhard, who located its origins as much in the prevalence of dominant and submissive relationships in wider society as in individual aggressive tendencies, and noted that it seemed to be specific to 'well-developed civilizations' that were 'complex and heavily reliant upon symbolism' (1983: 38-39). By Gebhard, Krafft-Ebing's two sexual 'anomalies' have become fused into the one term, sadomasochism. Following him, researchers like Thomas Weinberg have approached SM through studying SM interactions and the sociology of SM subcultures like the 'leather' scene.
All these classic views of SM have worthwhile elements but are often limited and one-sided. Sade's polemic is of little use for a modern understanding of SM, and Sacher-Masoch speaks only of a particular kind of extremely dominant-submissive relationship which, though far from unknown, does not account for everyone. Krafft-Ebing and Freud see SM as a problematic deviation from 'normal' sexual desire, regarded in the narrow terms of individual psychopathology; in addition their views are coloured by conventional assumptions about male aggression and female submission which do not convince in a world where the majority of male SMers are found to be at least initially masochistic. The popular view unsatisfactorily lumps sexual sadomasochists who satisfy their desires through consensual interaction with dangerous psychopaths who care little about the willingness or otherwise of their victims. Ellis focusses on pain, ignoring the elements of dominance and submission which are at least as important to many SMers.
Gebhard's appeal to social factors in the genesis of SM is potentially promising, but the sociological researchers that followed have often neglected the difficult question of how the totality of social interractions produce SM and focussed on studying the workings of various SM subcultures or the 'scene'. Any approach based entirely on the closed world of the scene faces the problem that for the individual the SM desire most likely precedes any involvement in the scene - in fact it is usually what makes people seek the scene out in the first place - and there are many we would want to regard as SMers who continue to remain outside it.
Over the past few decades as SMers on the scene have become more confident and visible, they have started to articulate their own views about themselves, but these too have limitations, understandably since they have generally developed from a defensive position. SMers have first had to defend themselves against medical professionals who see their sexual proclivities as a dysfunction requiring treatment rather than a pleasurable and fulfilling activity. And in recent years they have come under attack from certain sections of the feminist movement who, like Krafft-Ebing and Freud, fail to recognise the distinction between consensual interaction that mimics the symbolism of cruelty and oppression in the private sphere and real acts of cruelty and oppression in the wider world. Writers like Sheila Jeffreys (1985) and the contributors to the collection of papers Against Sadomasochism (Linden et al 1982) see SM as reinforcing the social structures that subjugate women in particular, and are particularly outraged at lesbians involved in SM.
Unfortunately many of SM's defenders have made similar mistakes to their feminist critics and abstracted and idealised what is going on in SM encounters. One common view, popularised by the influential compilation on lesbian SM, Coming to Power (Samois 1981), is that of SM as a 'power exchange', which is an attempt to reflect the fact that SM scenes usually involve negotiations of some sort over who does what to whom. These negotiations, however, are less to do with power and more to do with issues of control and consent; the question of power may only be said to apply if one of the participants is encumbered or restrained in some way and therefore 'powerless' in a narrow sense, though restraint is not essential to an SM scene. Wider social factors that account for real power in this world cannot be simply resolved into individual packages of power that individuals can exchange freely in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Real social divisions cannot be effaced by sex nor any other form of individual interraction. The rich white male masochist will continue to command more social power than the poor black female sadist no matter how they interrelate sexually. All that is required for good and ethical SM sex - and indeed should go for any form of sex - is that they treat each other as equals when negotiating the limits of the interraction.
One useful contribution from the SM scene itself is the provision of new terms that reflect the diversity of SM experience which so befuddled earlier writers. In the past SMers have used the terms 'slave' and 'master/mistress', placing an emphasis on the interactive roles rather than the psychological states (confusingly these are also abbreviated to S and M, and when some writers use, say, the letter S on its own they may be referring to a slave or a sadist!) However, these terms carry shadings of extreme submission and humiliation which are not always present, and the more neutral terms 'top' and 'bottom' are now commonly used to denote the participants in a particular scene. Unfortunately the defensiveness of some SM writers sometimes leads them to overstate the case for the positive, ethical and 'radical' aspects of SM, a tendency which, considering most SMers' sexuality is still in the end motivated by unconscious individual desires that not everyone shares, is potentially elitist.
It is perhaps most sensible to characterise SM, initially at least, not in terms of abstract notions of psychology, sociology or politics, but operationally, as a set of activities. This is the approach of Larry Townsend in his hilariously prescriptive introductions to the US gay male 'leather' milieu. Most 'scenes' (individual sexual interractions), according to Townsend, involve six characteristics: a dominant-submissive relationship, pleasurable pain, fantasy and/or role-playing, conscious humbling or humiliation, 'some form of fetish involvement', and 'the acting out of one or more ritualized interactions (bondage, flagellation, etc.)' (1983:15). Townsend's list is fairly comprehensive, but can probably be further reduced to three elements. The relative importance of these three varies between individual scenes more than Townsend seems to think, and one or more of them may be absent entirely though we may still feel we want to label the scene in question as an SM encounter.
Domination and Submission
The first is the acting out of domination and submission, which Krafft-Ebing originally identified only with masochism and which Ellis ignored. This can be expressed in various symbolic postures and activities such as kneeling and crawling, kissing and licking feet and footwear, the wearing of dog collars and leads and other items associated with the control of animals, various 'humiliations' such as stripping and exhibiting oneself, verbal abuse, use of special terms of address like 'sir/madam', 'boy/girl' etc. or even by the simple obeying of instructions. Bondage, the subjecting of someone to physical restraint, carries a powerful charge of dominance and submission too.
And for many people certain common sexual acts are also charged with these distinctions -- the insertive and receptive partners in sexual intercourse, particularly anal intercourse, can be seen as respectively dominant and submissive, and in the 'hanky codes' with which some SMers traditionally advertised their preferences, the conventions of dominant, active left and the passive, submissive right can apply to the polarities of fucking as much as to more specialised activities. For many people, dominance and submission is enough; and though it's likely most SM involves at least some element of it, there are some who eschew fixed roles and swap or freeplay entirely with our second element, pain.
Pain
Pain is taken by many to be at the core of SM and indeed there are some for whom the main pleasure of SM is in the intensity of the physical stimulation it can involve, which means not only sensations that most would agree are painful, such as hard beatings, but those that are unusual and invasive though not necessarily painful such as piercings, enemas, catheters and the like. But there are many people for whom dom-sub play is enough and others who actually do not enjoy pain itself but get a kick out of anticipating it or looking back with pride at having endured it. And, as Ellis realised, those who inflict pain may get more out their 'victim's' enjoyment of it than from inflicting pain for its own sake. Sometimes people call those who enjoy giving and receiving pain 'true sadists' and 'true masochists', though Krafft-Ebing originally argued that masochism was more to do with submission than pain; Ellis's preferred term 'algolagnia', meaning 'enjoyment of pain' in Greek, is more accurate if more unwieldy.
In any case, the body's response to pain is complex. The boundary between pleasure and pain can shift according to context and recedes noticeably when other sexual stimulation is involved, which accounts for the popularity of the 'horseplay' Krafft-Ebing noticed even among 'normal' couples; good SMers learn to play with these boundaries, building up the level of stimulation subtly to warm the body up to take more. Some of this is to do with body chemistry, and the production of the body's own pain-control substances, endorphins; these are stimulated by exercise and by painful activity and as well as making pain easier to cope with can also give an intense and dreamy sense of well-being like that obtained from opiate drugs, which are chemically similar. Some of it is psychological, to do with the pleasure of mentally coping with pain, or exploring intense sensations in a safe context to find out what they feel like and enjoying their apparent extremity.
Fetishism
The third and possibly the most important factor is fetishism. Fetishes were originally inanimate objects thought by members of some technologically primitive societies to possess supernatural powers. In both classical sexual psychology and in common usage, fetishism is the obtaining of sexual excitement and gratification from an object which, in Freud's terms, 'bears some relation to the normal sexual object but is entirely unsuited to serve the normal sexual aim' (1953:153) and according to Freud, the fetish object is a substitute for the mother's missing penis, an explanation that incidentally seems inadequate to explain fetishism amongst women. Fetishism could be for another part of the body, such as the shoulder or the foot, but the classic examples of fetish objects are materials like leather and rubber and items of clothing like boots and underwear; the necessity for the presence of a fetish object varies from fetishist to fetishist, and in rare cases supplants any other form of sexual desire.
Some people do not regard classical fetishism of this kind sufficient to count as SM, and those who are 'just' fetishists with no interest in dom-sub or pain scenes have sometimes been looked down upon in certain sections of the SM scene. However, as Townsend notes, an element of fetishism seems to be present alongside other factors in most SM encounters, and it is no accident that the word 'leather' has often been used as a euphemism for SM.
There is a more important sense, however, in which all SM could be said in some way to be fetishistic, and it partly hinges upon how we interpret what Freud terms things 'unsuited to the normal sexual aim'. Talk of normality in psychology is often fraught with oversimplification and value-judgement, and supporters of sexual freedom quickly go on the defensive at the mention of terms like 'normal' and 'natural'. This is understandable, since our history as human beings has been one of progressively overcoming nature, making and remaking ourselves through societies where 'normality' is in a state of constant flux. But there is still in our society a residue that we have failed to entirely socialise, particularly in the areas of reproduction and the family; and while a residual reproductive function of sex exists alongside its recreational function, the identification of sexual normalcy with heterosexual procreative sex still has real force. In this context, SM sexual activity, which need not involve intercourse and orgasm and, as Sacher-Masoch showed, may not even require genital contact, seems a very long way from the 'normal sexual aim'.
At the same time, our society is fetishistic in a wider sense, since it is based on an economic system where workers are alienated from the products of their labour, and where those products are produced and distributed not according to their usefulness or desirability but according to their exchange-value through the mystified forces of money and the market. This gives rise to the phenomenon Karl Marx termed 'commodity fetishism', where 'the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labour is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labour...a definite social relation between men...assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things (1954:76-77).
The effects of commodity fetishism run deep, and can be clearly seen, for example, in the way we are encouraged to express our views of ourselves as individuals through the consumption of commodities, a tendency even more evident today than in Marx's time. This tendency is underlined since commodities themselves often seem to provide security in a world where many aspects of our lives seem beyond our control. And it might be suggested that commodity fetishism extends beyond commodities as actual objects and into the direct objectification of people and their activities into specific roles and characteristics.
This is something that affects all our lives, not just our sex lives, and its sexual repercussions are by no means limited to SMers: it can be seen, for example, in the tendency to disintegrate the body into separate parts and single out particular ones, typically the penis and breasts, with obsessive concern for physical characteristics and size. But in many SMers' preoccupations with paraphenalia, clothing, equipment, definite physical states such as that of being pierced or bound in certain ways, and strictly defined roles and activities it does seem to find a particularly poignant expression. Through the multiple objectifications of an SM encounter we assert control, in a limited way, over at least a small and very personal part of our lives. And, interestingly, we do it through the appropriation of images and activities associated most strongly with the limiting of freedom and control.
If I had to come up with a characterisation of SM that I felt usefully illuminated our understanding of it I would say that SM was a sexual encounter with some mechanism for the control of the encounter to which the participants consented on an equal basis, consisting at least of fetishised activities that were not naturally connected with sexual reproduction and furthermore would be normally be regarded in other contexts as unpleasant and undesirable, particularly activities associated with coercion and lack of control. Some SMers find this latter fact unpalatable to put into words, but it seems to me no-one would want to classify activities normally regarded as pleasant and desirable (for example, eating nice food or admiring beautiful objects) as SM even if they were brought within the mutually consensual sexual encounter.
In conclusion, I want to stress that I don't mean by any of the foregoing to criticise or censure any individual's sexual practise. Neither do I share the apparent desire of some SMers to police their community by the application of definitions, and exclude those who are not into 'real' SM. I'm in favour of maximum sexual freedom and experimentation, and opposed to any attempt to intervene in the rights of consenting parties to do whatever they like to each other. If SM is in some way more to do with the limits on our human potential than with its expansion, these are limits imposed by the world and not the choice of individuals. The world is as we find it, we are as much a part of it as anyone else and on an individual level we make the best of it we can; changing it is something that cannot be done within the walls of the bedroom or playroom. In the meantime, and relatively speaking, SM can be fulfilling, exciting and fun.
© Copyright Des de Moor 1996. All rights reserved.
You may make a copy of this document for your own personal use, but please do not publish, re-post or otherwise distribute it without permission.
People outside the SM community (the vanilla crowd) have some rather odd ideas about us. They think of SM as nothing more than the infliction of pain. Worse, they see our behavior as sick and self destructive.
Those of us who have been 'on the scene' for a while know that this viewpoint is untrue in its portrayal of our behavior and its conception of who we are as individuals and as a community. I suppose their conclusions would be valid enough if only they were based on fact instead of fiction. But enough about what the terminally clueless say about us. We have voices and we can speak for ourselves -- and with the advent of the net, we can speak to more people than ever before!
It is human nature to attempt to simplify the complex and encapsulate the infinite through the application of arbitrary definitions. Definitions not only explain meaning, they restrict it. After all, the word define comes from the Latin for border or restrict. Certainly this is what has been done with SM.
So, in order to find out what SM really is, we must discard our preconceived ideas. For hundreds of years, people believed that the world was flat. They were wrong. They thought wacking off would grow hair on your palms. They were wrong. Is it really so hard to believe that they could be wrong once again?
So let's take a step back and start fresh. Let's look at the reality of SM as a practice and as a community. You might be surprised what you find.
Because SM is a very personal thing, no single definition will work for all people. Some are into pain, other into Dominant/submissive interpersonal dynamics (power play). Everybody has their own kink, from Sex Magick to fisting. It is a challenge to come up with a definition that is inclusive enough to cover all these widely spaced bases. However, I think that my personal definition of SM is encompassing enough to represent most leatherfolk in spirit if not in letter. Okay, here goes:
The exploration, between consenting partners, of alternative or nontraditional forms of eroticism.
Note that in my definition, pain isn't even mentioned. It's not that pain cannot be a part of SM. For many, it is a primary part. But it is important to recognize that for many others, it isn't a factor at all. It certainly isn't pervasive enough in the community to be a requirement for membership. No one kink is. The one thing we all have in common is that we are outside the mainstream. That's what makes us who we are.
Exploring the SM side of your sexuality can be as difficult as exploring any other aspect of your sexuality. For many gay people, making first contact with other gays and lesbians is a very difficult step, but a necessary one. It is painful to feel all alone -- as painful for leatherfolk as it is for homosexuals. Homophobia can be internalized, leading to negative self-image and numerous other problems. Sometimes it leads all the way to suicide. Is it reasonable to expect the scorn and ridicule often heaped on leatherfolk not to bear fruit as well?
Fortunately, there are hundreds of leather clubs and organizations worldwide that promote a positive image of our community through education and community outreach. If you have questions, or just want to meet people who understand and support you for who you are, contact a group in your area. A number of excellent links pages list dozens -- see for example the Links pages at Leather Online.
Making first contact in the SM world, and actually admitting your deepest, most twisted, perverted, and yes, exciting fantasies to another human being is a big step. It can be a frightening one, but it is a necessary one. You might be surprised at the reception you receive. There are more of us than you think.
If you decide you want to experiment with SM, let me give you a word of advice. Find a mentor in your area. Make sure that person is someone you can trust. Ideally, he or she would be a longstanding member of the community, with both a knowledge of the technical aspects of SM and an understanding of the philosophical side. Develop a relationship with him or her. Under good tutelage, you can learn quickly and safely.
Take a risk. Play. Explore. Learn. Enjoy!
Ours is a truly diverse community: as well as the huge diversity of activities that take place in our community, we inherit the many varieties of diversity that belong to everyone -- color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and more.
It would seem at first glance that the wild diversities our scene has heaped upon it in addition to all those the rest of the world deals with would cause fractiousness and division, but nothing could be further from the truth. While we are all unique, our common position outside the mainstream endows us with certain traits in common - among them a tolerance within our ranks and elsewhere.
The Leather Community even has a term for a kind of all-inclusive sexuality: pansexuality. The concept of pansexuality has two dimensions. Let's deal with them separately, then we'll look at how well they fit together.
On an organizational level, it represents an openness to a diverse mix of people -- gay, straight and bisexual; female, male and transgendered. Let's face it, people don't all come in one flavor. And when you mix-and-match these traits, you come up with an entire spectrum of possible gender/orientation combinations. A club or organization is pansexual if its membership and its events are open to all persons, regardless of gender or orientation.
On this level, pansexuality is a social and political movement. It rightly overcomes the barriers between people that are more imagined than real in the first place.
On a personal level, pansexuality does not restrict one's options based on arbitrary criteria like gender and orientation. You could call it the lack of an orientation. Michael Stipe of R.E.M. referred to himself in an Advocate interview as 'an equal-opportunity lech'. Pretty much says it all.
For many leatherfolk, myself included, pansexuality means that we can play with anyone who turns us on, with no hard rules or prejudgements. I have very little actual sexual attraction for women, but I have still had some great SM scenes with leatherwomen. I think the reason this works so well in SM is that SM happens 90% in the head. The brain is the largest sexual organ.
These two aspects of pansexuality don't always go together. I know people who are perfectly comfortable in a pansexual social setting, but who play only with persons of a certain gender. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. Sexuality is a matter of personal choice.
I also know people of both genders who refuse to socialize with those of the opposite gender. This applies both to so-called 'separatist' lesbians and to some gay leathermen. Personally, I find both these viewpoints appalling. There are some women whose presence can ruin the atmosphere in a leather bar, just as some men whose presence can threaten women -- but it is their attitude, not their gender, at work.
So with regards to diversity, the Leather Community is ahead of society at large, and making progress. I am proud to be part of a community that is out in front leading this movement. As a community, we have met the challenge. As individuals, we don't always live up to these ideals, but we are at our best when we do.
Dominance and submission (D/s) is one of the most interesting and complex facets of SM. It is not only an activity, but an entire lifestyle that challenges virtually every established norm.
A D/s relationship can be described as a relationship in which the exchange of power is a major dynamic. Unlike abusive relationships, however, D/s relationships are negotiated arrangements which meet the psychological, sexual, and social needs of all participants. The nature of each D/s relationship is unique, because the manner in which the power relationship is understood and practiced is a very personal matter. This can make such a relationship more difficult to understand, but it also allows those persons involved in a D/s relationship the flexibility to design a relationship that is tailored to fit their specific needs and desires.
No one on the outside of a D/s relationship has the authority or even the ability to judge its success. I have heard critical statements made about D/s relationships from people who should know better. They usually criticize the participants not fitting the critic's idea of a D/s relationship. These critics forget that any relationship, and especially a D/s relationship, is an individual thing, and that if it fits the needs of the participants, then it is successful. No one's sexuality is open to review by others -- that's one of the fundamentals of the leather community philosophy.
Interestingly enough, it has been my experience that those who criticize the relationships of others tend to be single. That alone ought to tell you something.
So, if you are interested in pursuing a D/s relationship, make sure you don't allow outside influences to tell you with is right for you. Seek advice from experienced people, but regard it as advice only, not as law.
D/s relationships often pattern themselves on traditional power relationships. Using the traditional paradigms of straight society, the individuals might pattern their relationship in one of the following ways:
This is the type of relationship that Donn and I have. Although I exercise authority in the home and outside it, the basic nature of my role as Daddy is supportive, loving, and nurturing -- exactly as a biological father should be. Discipline is given when I feel it is in Donn's best interests, rarely for its own sake. And while Donn is generally submissive, he can be at times as unruly as any boy! Does that mean we do not live a true Daddy-boy relationship? I don't think so.
For some, the Daddy-boy relationship serves as a transitional period on the way to a Master-slave relationship. It allows playful experimentation with D/s without requiring as complete an exchange of power as a Master-slave relationship does.
In some circles, there is a lot of controversy about the Master-slave relationship. To see how much, just check out the BDSM newsgroups. At any time, there are usually several combative conversations going on about whether or not a given couple are real Masters or real slaves.
Some say that Master-slave relationships require TPE -- Total Power Exchange. In other words, the kind of enforced slavery where consent, when given, is nonretractable. A slave, once enslaved, cannot leave. They say that if the slave leaves the relationship, it was never truly TPE because a true slave cannot leave his enslavement.
Such arguments are much ado about nothing. A Master-slave relationship requires only the honestly and sincerely felt desires of the participants. We as outsiders to the relationship are wrong when we criticize other people's relationships. Perhaps we form opinions; how could we not? But any criticisms we have should be made as constructive criticisms to those involved.
The level of consensual power exchange in this type of relationship requires means that it isn't for everybody. Many people view the Master-slave relationship as the ultimate in D/s, and they want very much to live it because of its extremity. Unfortunately, very few people are truly suited for the Master-slave lifestyle, including many who pursue it.
In my experience, most people who self-identify as slaves don't really want to live that way all the time. It can be an intense fantasy or a great weekend scene, but living as a slave (or as a Master) full-time takes an incredible amount of dedication. This level of dedication is not often found.
With that said, I must also say that there are many people for whom the Master-slave relationship truly is ideal. If you are one of these, you must be true to yourself. If you have the dedication to work hard and sacrifice (and that goes for both slaves and their Masters), the potential rewards are enormous.
It takes a lot of learning to prepare for a Master-slave relationship. Neither Masters nor slaves are born that way. Yes, the desire is often innate, but the real-life skills that these roles require take education, practice, and a certain level of understanding that comes only with experience.
For a superb collection of useful articles on gay male master-slave relationships see Stein 1996.