![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sabinetzinSo I was annoyed at tumblr a little, and then a thousand words later, I had this rant/meta about D/s and how everyone is Doing It Wrong.
So, here we go talking about who's more domly and who's more subby again, and here's what bothers the shit out of me: nobody is inherently dominant, and nobody is inherently submissive.
I'm here to talk about Charles and Erik, but I'm not at all saying that this is an XMFC problem. It's a problem with fandom at large, and very unfortunately, it's also a real life problem. Please know that with this post, I am not calling out anyone in specific; if I am doing anything combative at all (which is not my intention), I am calling everybody out.
All of us are made up of a lot of traits. Some of these traits lend themselves more towards taking on a dominant role. Some lend themselves more towards taking on a submissive role. Some of them can make a case for either side. It's as simple as that. Nobody was endowed by the God of BDSM* with domliness or subbiness.
When you choose to represent a character as submissive or dominant, you are not fulfilling the master plan of the God of BDSM. You are making an authorial choice to impose a role on a character based on the traits that you feel are most important to their characterization as you interpret it; your choice is not the only valid choice.
I think the biggest problem is that people think that there is dom and sub, no questions, black and white. That's not how it goes, not at all. There are many ways to dom and there are many ways to sub. People are drawn to it for different reasons, and as long as they don't lead to physical or mental harm, all those reasons are valid.
So let's look at Charles and Erik for a second, okay? Because there are about a billionty pairs/groups of characters one could make this analysis for, but this one is the one bothering me right now, for the sheer amount of "Well, obviously," going around at present.
Lots of reasons for Erik to sub (I have fallen in with the people who mostly like dom!Charles/sub!Erik, so if I am speeding through this first part, that is why). Erik is tired, and it would be nice to just let somebody else handle things for a while. Erik is a brat and needs someone to smack him down. Erik wants to do something worthwhile and good for once, something to help, and so and and so forth.
Lots of reasons for Charles to dom. Charles is no stranger to casually controlling people, which is a very domly thing to do, in my experience. Charles is a mentor type, which fits very well into domming, because they're often not dissimilar. Sometimes it's just hot for a little dude to take control of a bigger dude.
On the opposite side, Erik has domly things about him, because there are lots of ways to dom. Some people like predator/prey dynamics: there's an idea for early-canon Erik, being unable to get out of that mindset, good chance for some angst there. Some people like to be protectors; that seems like it would be up Erik's street. Hell, people like to be dominant and protect their subs, and some people have a guard dog mentality, submissives protecting their dominants. Some people just like to dominate people who are physically smaller than them, for no other reason than that they get off on being intimidating.
And then, there are lots of reasons for Charles to sub. The main submissve trait that I see in Charles that appeals to me is his wild streak. Some people like to get reined in, having someone stop them from doing whatever- some exciting shame kink there, too, of the "You filthy slut, I'll teach you not to provoke me" variety. Then there's the idea that Charles doesn't have any friends aside from Raven (and later, Erik). At least in one's little romantic heart of hearts, having a dom means that you'll never be alone. There's a point for both of them- they're both very lonely people who very clearly want to tie themselves together (in a romantic sense or no- and I will remind you that D/s never has to be sexual or romantic in nature).
So see there? There's plenty of room to argue the toss. This because of the fact that, in the real world**, nobody is born submissive or born dominant. That is some straight up, dumbass, first-day-on-collarme bullshit. Submissive and dominant are roles we take on and/or give to our characters. They are only as rigid as we make them. There is absolutely no telling if someone prefers to dom or sub just looking at them, or even looking at their behavior; you need to look inside at their motivations.
And for the love of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints, dominant and top do not mean the same thing***, nor do submissive and bottom. Dominants bottom and subs top and switches just have a good ole time. And, much more important than even that, dominants are not winners, and submissives are not losers. D/s is not a zero-sum game. The winners are the people who get what they need and have a good time.
And if you read through all of that, I hope you'll not attack me with pitchforks.
*The Lord Gor Almighty? *shot for pun*
**I have Thoughts about this in D/s AU as well. But D/s AU was mostly what I thought about during long, long seminars while I was doing my coursework, so there's a lot of BUT ROLE AND BODY POLITICS AND TRANS* ISSUES THOUGH, YOU GUYS lurking in my brain, only a little of which I have played with.
***We will, however, accept the labeling of dom/mes as "tops" in D/s AU because, y'know, can't use a gender-marked term in an AU where gender divisions aren't marked.
So, here we go talking about who's more domly and who's more subby again, and here's what bothers the shit out of me: nobody is inherently dominant, and nobody is inherently submissive.
I'm here to talk about Charles and Erik, but I'm not at all saying that this is an XMFC problem. It's a problem with fandom at large, and very unfortunately, it's also a real life problem. Please know that with this post, I am not calling out anyone in specific; if I am doing anything combative at all (which is not my intention), I am calling everybody out.
All of us are made up of a lot of traits. Some of these traits lend themselves more towards taking on a dominant role. Some lend themselves more towards taking on a submissive role. Some of them can make a case for either side. It's as simple as that. Nobody was endowed by the God of BDSM* with domliness or subbiness.
When you choose to represent a character as submissive or dominant, you are not fulfilling the master plan of the God of BDSM. You are making an authorial choice to impose a role on a character based on the traits that you feel are most important to their characterization as you interpret it; your choice is not the only valid choice.
I think the biggest problem is that people think that there is dom and sub, no questions, black and white. That's not how it goes, not at all. There are many ways to dom and there are many ways to sub. People are drawn to it for different reasons, and as long as they don't lead to physical or mental harm, all those reasons are valid.
So let's look at Charles and Erik for a second, okay? Because there are about a billionty pairs/groups of characters one could make this analysis for, but this one is the one bothering me right now, for the sheer amount of "Well, obviously," going around at present.
Lots of reasons for Erik to sub (I have fallen in with the people who mostly like dom!Charles/sub!Erik, so if I am speeding through this first part, that is why). Erik is tired, and it would be nice to just let somebody else handle things for a while. Erik is a brat and needs someone to smack him down. Erik wants to do something worthwhile and good for once, something to help, and so and and so forth.
Lots of reasons for Charles to dom. Charles is no stranger to casually controlling people, which is a very domly thing to do, in my experience. Charles is a mentor type, which fits very well into domming, because they're often not dissimilar. Sometimes it's just hot for a little dude to take control of a bigger dude.
On the opposite side, Erik has domly things about him, because there are lots of ways to dom. Some people like predator/prey dynamics: there's an idea for early-canon Erik, being unable to get out of that mindset, good chance for some angst there. Some people like to be protectors; that seems like it would be up Erik's street. Hell, people like to be dominant and protect their subs, and some people have a guard dog mentality, submissives protecting their dominants. Some people just like to dominate people who are physically smaller than them, for no other reason than that they get off on being intimidating.
And then, there are lots of reasons for Charles to sub. The main submissve trait that I see in Charles that appeals to me is his wild streak. Some people like to get reined in, having someone stop them from doing whatever- some exciting shame kink there, too, of the "You filthy slut, I'll teach you not to provoke me" variety. Then there's the idea that Charles doesn't have any friends aside from Raven (and later, Erik). At least in one's little romantic heart of hearts, having a dom means that you'll never be alone. There's a point for both of them- they're both very lonely people who very clearly want to tie themselves together (in a romantic sense or no- and I will remind you that D/s never has to be sexual or romantic in nature).
So see there? There's plenty of room to argue the toss. This because of the fact that, in the real world**, nobody is born submissive or born dominant. That is some straight up, dumbass, first-day-on-collarme bullshit. Submissive and dominant are roles we take on and/or give to our characters. They are only as rigid as we make them. There is absolutely no telling if someone prefers to dom or sub just looking at them, or even looking at their behavior; you need to look inside at their motivations.
And for the love of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints, dominant and top do not mean the same thing***, nor do submissive and bottom. Dominants bottom and subs top and switches just have a good ole time. And, much more important than even that, dominants are not winners, and submissives are not losers. D/s is not a zero-sum game. The winners are the people who get what they need and have a good time.
And if you read through all of that, I hope you'll not attack me with pitchforks.
*The Lord Gor Almighty? *shot for pun*
**I have Thoughts about this in D/s AU as well. But D/s AU was mostly what I thought about during long, long seminars while I was doing my coursework, so there's a lot of BUT ROLE AND BODY POLITICS AND TRANS* ISSUES THOUGH, YOU GUYS lurking in my brain, only a little of which I have played with.
***We will, however, accept the labeling of dom/mes as "tops" in D/s AU because, y'know, can't use a gender-marked term in an AU where gender divisions aren't marked.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-04-10 01:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-04-10 01:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-04-10 03:43 am (UTC)I gather that in some BDSM communities, consent doesn't seem to be the real lynchpin. Instead, they focus on *essentialism*: recognizing one's true inner nature as Dom or sub. For them, the important point doesn't seem to be SM is hurting a person who has consented to being hurt, it's that SM is matching up a person who has an inner need to hurt, with one who has an inner need to be hurt. The important consent is that you consent to your inner nature -- and this nature is an essential part of your personality (not to say "soul").
I agree with you that this is *bullshit*, and that it's a problem in fic and can become a danger in RL. But we have to acknowledge that it's extremely attractive bullshit for many people, and just saying "you're wrong!" isn't going to persuade them otherwise.
This is why I keep asking people to write "the BDSM fic where the Dom fucks up". If your fic *never* has a Dom making a mistake, fucking up, hurting in the bad way, or just doing something that makes everyone go "Bored now", then you're supporting the essentialist line.
Now, I've often said that I get irritated, after a while, at Doms who appear to have the telepathic power to always know what the sub wants even when the sub hirself has no idea. But thinking in the context of Charles/Erik, it would be *fascinating* if Charles was a Dom in part because hey, he *does* have that telepathic power, he could be the Magic Mind-Reading Dom that everyone is looking for. But then -- what happens when he *fucks up anyway*? Because you know he would ...
(no subject)
Date: 2012-04-10 04:44 am (UTC)That's a conflation of two different things on S/M and consent, there. I am a masochist because I do have a need to get hurt- if not a need, then a very deep-seated want. That's not something I consented to as such; it's just a fact of my life. I like sadists because they get it; they understand that I really don't want them to stop. Never have I felt like I was pushed to hook up with a sadist just because I'm a masochist- my top is a sadist, but that was mostly a happy accident, and I've played with people who weren't sadists but were willing to hurt me. Every time I play with someone, I specifically give my consent, and if I wasn't able to or didn't, someone would stop the scene. This is true in an community that's worth being in.
Consent is absolutely the linchpin of the larger BDSM community as it stands now. The old essentialist view isn't just bullshit; it's also really old bullshit. It is sadly attractive to some people, I won't deny that, but that's a danger of private play now, not the lifestyle.
I will qualify this by saying that no two scenes are alike. There are ALWAYS sketchy house parties and people fucking around in back rooms at swingers' clubs. But the tendency to accept that as what the BDSM community does is its own kind of essentialism, one that is extremely harmful towards people who are actually trying to live right and be acknowledged by the vanilla world. If vanilla people are never going to get over the idea that we're all a bunch of freaks, then we're not going to get anywhere.
I'm pretty much never going to write the "dom fucks up" fic, because it just makes me really sad- not like good, tear your heart out and stomp on it so you can get a good cry in sad, like hurts in the pit of my stomach sad. It's very similar to the prospect of "Mom forgot to pick me up after practice so I waited until dark and then had to walk home in the rain." I got no kinda interest in telling that story- just because it's instructive is no reason for me to write it..
(no subject)
Date: 2012-04-10 01:26 pm (UTC)Blah blah blah, I don't know what my point is.