Ms. Rika

Indicators Of Inexperience

August 1, 2021 By Ms. Rika 2 Comments

lesbian collar bdsm play — via stock.adobe.com

I hope you have been enjoying Rika’s Lair, my monthly column dedicated to thoughts and experiences regarding power dynamics in Service-Oriented D/s relationships. Look up “Ms. Rika” in the search box for links to all my articles in KinkWeekly!

In the relationships that I’ve developed over the years, either in my own dynamics or helping others with theirs, I’ve come across a lot of folks with a wide variety of backgrounds, experiences, and approaches. The only thing they all have in common, is an interest in engaging in power dynamics of various sorts.

When you’re dealing with a substantial number of people, you begin to see certain tendencies, habits, and beliefs that transcend backgrounds. These are things I identify as “trends”. One of those trends is how folks fill-in for the lack of standardization of terms and definitions surrounding power dynamics. They invent their own definitions…and it has impact on relationships.

I’ve written before on how – as a consequence of not having mutually understood standards for the practices of BDSM and D/s – terminology, identity, and even basic definitions are left up to the individual’s interpretation. Consequently, everyone has their own meaning for what a dominant is, what dominance is, what submission entails, etc. In fact, there are entire groups of people formed by a few folks, choosing a single definition and protocol to be put into play, and giving themselves a label and rules to follow to “belong”.

From the perspective of communications, particularly with new potential partners, this lack of structure and definition can wreak havoc. Assumptions as to what a partner means by a term, no matter how common, can lead to gross misunderstandings and unfulfilled expectations.

To compound this communication challenge, the lack of standards allows individuals to mask their experience and knowledge levels. People without any real-life experience serving or being served, can talk about power dynamics, based only on their exposure to videos, written porn, or virtual realities like Second Life. The number of “Cyber-Only” players, espousing their knowledge as if it’s gospel, is frightening. Even Fetlife.com, which is a terrific resource for discussion and knowledge sharing, is littered with inexperience masquerading as mentorship.

It helps to be able to quickly identify inexperience. Luckily, there are a few “tells” that immediately inform you that the person to whom you’re speaking is pretending.

The “Do Anything” Mentality

First off is perhaps the most obvious. The sub who claims they will “Do Anything” for you, Mr/Ms Dominant! Only inexperience will make this claim. People with experience will talk to you about those experiences, and will discuss what they liked / disliked about them. They will make suggestions based on what other dominants have liked in the past and inquire as to whether the suggestion has merit for you. The “Do Anything” submissive seems incapable of speaking about their own desires – until the dynamic no longer matches them – and then they are ready to complain about the quality of domination. When you ask a sub for a suggestion or an opinion and they answer with “You’re the dominant, you can do anything you want” – it’s inexperience talking.

The “All the Time” Commitment

Next up is the person – dominant or submissive – who believes that they will be able to maintain a protocol always and forever. They lay out how they will act, how they will respond, how they will live – 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

It’s just not possible. Life gets in the way. Reality happens.

In my second book, “Uniquely Us”, I introduced Sean and Dave, a couple who took the time to write down every single action they could imagine happening and what would happen next. They set protocols for every conceivable situation. “The Book” served them for about half a year, then modifications started overwhelming them. After a while, “The Book” fell into disuse, as they could no longer keep it up to date with all the changes they were experiencing. Eventually, they wrote a new “book”, which was only a couple of pages long that talked about their INTENT of service rather than specifics. That became their bible. Armed with experience, they were far more practical and realistic about their expectations.

The “I am nothing but a dominant / submissive” Claim

This is the person who thinks that dominants and submissives are defined entirely by their role. They are not a partner in a relationship who is the dominant…they are not a school teacher or a bus driver or an executive – who also is the dominant in their home life. They are “A Dominant” or “A Submissive”, as if that fully defines them.

The inexperienced person idealizes the roles. They focus on the roles first and the person later. In the fantasy, they see the person as being dominant or submissive every moment of every day. They are super heroes, impervious to the mundane life the rest of us share.

Experienced people understand that their dominant or submissive is a person – who is also dominant/submissive. They look for relationships with people first, and focus on the bigger picture – assuming they want more than a session-based relationship. Their experience tells them that what lasts in a relationship, are the sum of ALL of your dynamics and connections.

The “Label-Dropper”

People will come up to you and start talking in labels, without describing what they mean. “I’m a submissive”, they’ll say. “Really? What kind of submissive? Do you mean ‘bottom’? Oh wait, ‘bottom’…does that mean you like to be whipped? Oh…tied up and tickled? Wait, master…slave? Property or servant?”

The label dropper is likely inexperienced… At a minimum, they’ve never experienced anyone outside of their definition-circle and therefore don’t realize that other folks could have a different definition for a label than they do. They blindly believe that their limited contact is all there is to know.

More likely, they are truly inexperienced, and are simply assuming that the definition for the term that they read is widely accepted and that they are safe to repeat it, without really knowing a broader meaning.

The “All Dominants/Submissives Do ‘X’” Instructor

This is the person who “educates” others on what “ALL” dominants/submissives do. They are the person who tries to pressure their partner into doing the things they enjoy, because “that’s what all dominants/submissives do!”

This is a BIG indicator of inexperience. Though experienced people might make assumption about what their partner wants – based on their experience with others – their answer, if called-out on it, is, “This is what others I’ve been with enjoyed and I assumed you might like it too”. Its not, “This is what all dominants want”! The experienced response acknowledges that their frame of reference is limited by their experience and that their new partner might not be the same as the old. They know that different people like different things and it’s best to learn about your unique partner and avoid assumption.

The “All Do ‘X’” instructors are often well-versed in videos and written porn – they’ve learned by watching media. Media has a remarkably homogenous storyline – and it truly appears as though ‘all dominants/submissives do ‘X’. The ‘instructors’ have read what others are saying about what it means to be a dominant or submissive and are regurgitating it verbatim, as their knowledge. They want the lifestyle they’ve seen, and try to find partners who feel the same way – often being disappointed when they find that all dominant/submissives DON’T like ‘X’!

Wrapping Up

There’s nothing wrong with being inexperienced. Everyone was inexperienced at some point in their lives. When I meet someone who demonstrates their inexperience, possibly in one of the means I listed above, I attempt to help to educate them. They are often trying to appear more experienced than they are – and in their attempt to appear experienced, they are revealing their inexperience. I want them to accept their inexperience and work to gain real experience – just as the rest of us did – and continue to do (because learning never stops). ‘Fake it until you make it’ can have some serious implications when the cost of the façade is someone else’s happiness, emotions, sense of self-worth, or worse, safety. It is far better to admit one’s inexperience and work with a partner to gain it mutually.

There are no experts. No one who knows everything. For certain, I don’t know everything. Experienced people know that learning continues, forever. Remain a student forever.

As always, ‘define before you opine’ – recognize that there are no standards, and if you want to have meaningful communication with someone, you’re better off sharing your definitions first and avoiding labels. Look out for inexperience masquerading as mentorship. Help those who show their inexperience by trying to appear more experienced. It’s OK to be inexperienced.

Ms. Rika is a lifestyle dominant, educator, and author; living in the suburbs of NYC with her husband/slave. She has written several popular books on her approach to adding Dominant-Centric, Service-Oriented D/s to relationships. You can find her books (in both print and eBook formats) at Lulu.com (http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/msrika), or at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, the iStore, Books-A Million, Kobo.com, or anywhere books are sold. Search for “Ms. Rika”. Write to me at Ms_Rika@hotmail.com

Remove the Power Dynamic and Re-Ask the Question

July 23, 2021 By Ms. Rika 3 Comments

hot Domme ass with crop — via stock.adobe.com

Earlier this week, I received a question from a woman who was wondering how to approach her dominant partner regarding the time he was spending with an ex-submissive. She was expressing anger that he was not spending that time with her, and that she was conflicted about talking to him about it, because he was her dominant.

The day before that, I read a question in a FetLife discussion group regarding how to find compatible partners for a D/s relationship.

The day before that, a woman was complaining that her dominant husband / ‘daddy’ wasn’t paying her enough attention and was triggering a ‘fear of abandonment’ issue for her. According to her, it was ‘his job’ to take care of her…and he wasn’t.

These three problems share a common thread: They all highlight power dynamics in the relationship, and yet, all have absolutely nothing to do with power dynamics!

In follow-up discussions with each of these people, I was able to ascertain the root of the real issues…and in all three cases, the core values of the relationship were in question – not the power dynamics. In the first case, the woman felt he was spending time with his ex that she felt he should prefer he spend with her. In the discussion, I asked if she would feel the same way if it was a beer-buddy that he was seeing, rather than an ex – and eventually she admitted it wasn’t the time so much as the person. She was feeling insecure and threatened by an ex-partner of her partner. Who hasn’t felt that?

The gentleman in the second problem was receiving advice from lots of folks online: Get out there, go to munches, meet the person first then find kink compatibility, etc. It read like a lot of standard, vanilla dating advice…because it was…because ultimately, he was looking for a partner…we’ve all done that.

The third woman was dealing with an abandonment issue that she had already spent a lifetime in therapy working through. She knew the tools she needed to put in place to help herself, but was avoiding the effort and placing it on her dominant. But the real problem was the same as it always was and the resolution rested with her, as it always had.

I don’t know whether it’s a need for self-importance or just a correlation vs. consequence conflation, but I often see people who are in relationships with power dynamics giving WAY too much importance to the power dynamic and denying the fact that they are in a good-old relationship. I often hear how much “stronger” a relationship is, because it has a power dynamic. Or, how much better the people are at communicating because they have a power dynamic that requires communication.

I believe this is a correlation and not a consequence and I challenge it: Power dynamics are just one of MANY mutual dynamics / passions a couple can share – any of which will strengthen a relationship and many of which will exercise communications. In fact, any activity or dynamic in which you engage, that exercises communications, will TEST those communication skills – and your relationship will hang in the balance. Having a power dynamic doesn’t improve your communication skills – good communication skills improve your power dynamic. You can observe good communications in relationships that last, and that includes power relationships that last. But it’s not the existence of the power dynamic that creates the good communications…it’s the other way around.

When folks approach me with questions / issues regarding their power relationships, most of the time the problem really has nothing to do with the power dynamic. Most of the challenges we face are plain old relationship conflicts that need plain-old relationship solutions. What I have also found is that most of the people who approach me already know the answer to the problem, but are failing to see it, believing it must be different because they have a power dynamic! In some cases, they are HOPING it will be different because they have a power dynamic!

What I mean by that last statement is that many times the resolutions to relationship issues are difficult, and it would be awesome if having a power dynamic would make them simpler to resolve. There is an aspect of ‘giving up control’ that makes one’s life easier…and it is nice to think that giving up control will make relationship issue resolution easier too. Unfortunately, the layers don’t really mix that way. Relationship issues hit at a very base-level of NEED in people…and power dynamics aren’t impacting that level in that way. You must deal with relationship issues as equal partners in a relationship. There are no shortcuts.

I have found that resolution to most of these issues comes directly from the people themselves, once I force them to restate the question removing the power dynamic. When they voice their concern without consideration for their position in the power dynamic – and just look at it objectively within their knowledge of vanilla relationships, they suddenly can see the answer.

Sometimes, this is all that’s needed. Sometimes, they don’t like the answer they see, when they are forced to realize that power dynamics can’t be used as a crutch, an excuse for lazy behavior, or a reason to pass the burden of resolution onto their partner due to their role in the power dynamic. Issues with power dynamics need to be addressed without the D/s dynamic.

Next time you’re faced with a problem, try restating the issue without consideration for your power dynamic. What would a vanilla person do? If the answer to that question is clear to you, like it or not, it is probably the appropriate answer to your problem as well!

Identifying as a Submissive: What does that mean?

July 15, 2021 By Ms. Rika 4 Comments

woman tied to chair splashed with water — via stock.adobe.com

This afternoon, I had a good discussion (online) with one of my readers, who was challenging the notion that the definition of submission must come from the dominant. In his challenge, he stated that this statement excludes people who self-identify as submissives who do not have a dominant to serve. As far as the discussion goes, I stand firmly with my statement – however, his point got me thinking about “self-identification” as a submissive and what that really means.

The process of self-identification is an important part of today’s gender and sexuality discussions. It is an effective tool to break through predefined constructs and to open the door to more open thinking. I do, however, feel it’s rapidly becoming overused, particularly when it’s applied in ways that go beyond the gender discussion. You can identify as a lot of things…but sometimes calling yourself something doesn’t really make you that.

In BDSM and D/s circles, people self-identify a lot. You have people who declare their preferences by labeling themselves. Words like “dominant”, “submissive”, “fetishist”, etc., are thrown about without real definition. Even the words “Submission” and “Dominance” can mean different things to different people, so calling oneself a “Dominant” or “Submissive” only has meaning when we understand what dominance and submission mean to that person. Having a “fetish” actually has a dictionary definition,

but modern usage has thrown away the clinical meaning in favor of “This REALLY makes me hot!”. Since there is no credentialing system, people are free to declare themselves “Dominant of the world” and no one can really argue. In reality, the labels are meaningless – but they bring a sense of belonging and inclusion to folks, so why not?

Getting back to the basis of the discussion, how can you define submission without a dominant?

I searched for an analogy to support my point and I arrived at a reasonable one: A man who REALLY enjoys cooking and feels he’s good at it, decides to self-identify as “A Chef”. Let’s say he only cooks for himself at this point. In my mind, this self-identification is closely analogous to the man who really likes the idea of submitting and calls himself “A Submissive” – although a submissive doesn’t submit to himself.

My self-identified “Chef” doesn’t have anyone to cook for at this point. Can he really be a chef? Would you hire him to cook for you?

My assertion is that self-identifying as a Chef is a statement of your passion. It’s your preference and “identity” and it means that you want to cook. I further assert, however, that when this person is hired to cook for someone, the recipesthat are needed are subject to the tastes and preferences of the person. What KIND of chef does that person need / prefer: a meat chef; a fish chef; a pastry chef; a sauce chef? Until you know what type of chef is desired – or what type of recipes the person for whom you are cooking prefers, you can’t define the content of the food that will satisfy them. You might be a “chef”, but you don’t know what you’re cooking until you know what’s ordered!

Self-identifying as a submissive is all well and good as a statement of preference and identity…but until you have someone to submit to, you can’t define submission. Submission, since it’s tied to what you are doing for another person, requires that other person to be there. You can’t submit to nothing. Submission must be received as submissionto be realized. If you doubt that, ask the myriad of folks who are frustrated trying to submit to a partner who won’t accept their efforts from a position of dominance or who are unfulfilled with “stealth-submission” because the meaning is missing without reception. Can you identify as a submissive without submitting to anyone? I suppose you can, but there isn’t really any definition in that label.

In fact, trying to define it without a partner can be detrimental. I have met a lot of folks who try to define submission without consideration for a specific partner. They have preconceived notions of what submission is and what dominance looks like. They create their own challenges by doing this. Very often, they talk about “finding compatibility” (usually in the context of NOT being able to find a compatible partner), which is really a colloquialism for “trying to find someone who has defined submission the same way that they did”, which, if you really think about it, is basically confirming that the dominant is the one setting the definition of submission, it’s just that they happen to want the same!

BTW: These are often the same folks who accuse their partners of not being “dominant enough”… or … “not knowing how to dominate” or “needing training in how to dominate” or any number of other inappropriate attacks. Don’t be that guy.

There is also the notion that someone will be a good submissive because they are “experienced”. What does that mean in the context of a new dominant; with new preferences, tastes, and desires? I’d buy into it if they said, “I’ll make a good submissive because I have experience adapting to how people define submission to them. My skill is learning and adapting.” THAT statement, I’d believe. But thinking that they’d be a good submissive for dominant ‘B’ because they served dominant ‘A’ doesn’t fly.

So, self-identification as a submissive is fine. Identity is important and preferences are important. If the label means something to you, use it. However, defining submission without a dominant to serve is folly. If your goal is to serve your dominant, you need to allow that dominant to define what serves them. Then you know what “dish” is required of you and you can work to deliver that.

Submit To The Person

July 8, 2021 By Ms. Rika 2 Comments

lesbians kissing, Shibari — via stock.adobe.com

Today, I’m thinking about a tendency among many submissives, to think of a dominant as the entire person, rather than as a dynamic in a relationship with a person. You’ll hear them say, “I’m looking for ‘A Dominant’”, “Why can’t I find more ‘Dominants’?”, “I’m A Submissive, I need A Dominant”. It is as if the person is defined solely by their preference when it comes to power dynamics. The notion is that ‘A Dominant’ is what a person is…when, in reality, a person ‘is’ a lot of things – including being a dominant in their relationships.

From my perspective as a dominant woman, I see this predominantly from male submissives (but it is certainly not limited to a specific gender). Very often, they approach women, looking for ‘A Dominant’ without any consideration for who the woman really is. Worse, they have often already defined what ‘A Dominant’ is, and are looking for it, exclusively. The ‘Dominant’ is viewed as a collective object – predictable based solely on their preference for “dominance” – and consistent from person to person (as long as they “know how to dominate”). Any dominant will do, because they are believed to be interchangeable. Of course, since that’s not true, this often can create serious issues with the relationship.

This viewpoint manifests itself in several common ways: Many submissives have a predetermined view of what ‘a dominant’ does; how they act; their attitude; their dress – and don’t see a person as dominant unless they meet those criteria. Or, they may discover that they don’t have compatibility with a dominant from a relationship perspective, even though they’ve had compatibility in kink. Or, they may not recognize dominance, if it doesn’t match the femininely-styled masculine image of a dominant.

I’ve discussed this last point before; the notion that dominance equatesto masculinity – and therefore, female dominance is thought of as a femininely-stylized imitation of masculinity. In my previous articles, I’ve pointed out that the porn-imagery of the female dominant shows women as ‘penetrators’ with strap-ons, in biker leathers (stylized), and having the heels of their boots (stylized jack boots) sucked ‘like a cock’. The notion that someone who doesn’t prefer traditionally masculine qualities (e.g., aggression, anger, micro-management, competitiveness, desire to overpower, etc.) is not ‘allowed’ in that imagery of dominance.

Relationships are a complex collection of traits, personalities, and dynamics. Power dynamics are just one of many dynamics that may exist in a relationship. The person who is the dominant has many other facets totheir personalities – most having absolutely nothing to do with power dynamics. If you enter a relationship with a person, solely based on one dynamic or attribute, you are destined to encounter problems and potentially dissolution of the relationship. For example, people who have entered relationships because “the sex was so good”, have experienced the same types of issues. Folks doing the same for power dynamics likely are headed for similar negative outcomes.

The key here, is to submit to the person, not to their role in a dynamic. If you’re thinking something longer-termed than sharing a scenario, dedicating yourself in service to someone is a serious commitment. There needs to be something about that PERSON that makes you want to submit to them.

Something more than their gender and that they identify as dominant. You are submitting to the entire person, who they are, not just what role they prefer to play. You must get to know who they are to be able to establish a relationship based on more than power dynamics. Only then can you customize your submission to mold and serve the full person.

The next time you feel like engaging with someone who identifies as ‘dominant’, try to identify what it is about that unique person that is drawing you to serve them. If it’s nothing more than their gender and preference for dominance, slow down, get to know who they really are, and then THEN make the decision to submit!

Queen vs. Warden

June 24, 2021 By Ms. Rika 2 Comments

sexy Domme with whip — via stock.adobe.com

Today, I’d like to address a subject that’s been mentioned in passing in a few of my articles and books: The difference between being an enforcer and of being a leader.

The examples I’d like to use for this discussion, are the Warden of a prison versus the Queen of a land.

Both positions have “constituents” – those that reside in the area over which they have authority. Both have the authority to set rules and procedures for those constituents. Both have power to rule, somewhat unilaterally. Both have the right to enforce their will. Both are in positions of superiority.

Of course, there are a number of differences:

The Warden’s constituency is not present by choice. They are incarcerated and restricted. The warden is feared. There is no personal relationship with the warden; interaction is limited to compliance with strict and granular rules that impact every moment of every day. Compliance is not a choice, it is mandatory – and failure to comply has severe punitive consequence. They are counting the days until they can get out.

The Queen’s constituency are members by choice. They are voluntarily citizens unless they no longer want/need the protections / benefits of the land. The Queen is revered and honored. She is worshiped and adored. She is the leader of the land. Her rules are somewhat generic; providing an overarching framework of culture and order, under which the citizens adapt for their specific lives. For the most part, participation in the regulations provide a level of freedom within that framework. Of course, repeated failure to comply to the regulations may result in banishment from the land or being turned over to … the warden, but for the most part, the constituents are governed by their desire to provide for the queen in their deed and intent.

Much of the literature surrounding BDSM and D/s fantasies, and consequently, many of those who approach me for advice or contact, approach dominance as a position of enforcement. Of course, there is a bit of a façade that gets played: When referring to dominants, they use words like “reverence” and “worship” – vernacular that would have you believe the dominant is a queen, but when you actually look at the nature of the imagery and understand the demands of the fantasy, you see that the role being described most resembles that of the warden.

Many submissivess are looking to be made captive. The fantasy is to be trapped, as if against one’s will, under the authoritative and restrictive rule of the dominant. There is usually an elaborate storyline that creates servitude – blackmail, disclosure, loss of bets, indenture – so that compliance to a strict rule is assured. Every movement curtailed; every decision made for them. When to eat, when to sleep, where to go, what to do. Enforcement is immediate and punitively consequential. The dominant is an enforcer: The “doer”; the active role. Obedience is driven through fear of consequence. All of this is necessary to make the façade feel real.

For most of the dominants I know, playing the role of warden can be fun and enjoyable – as a role. However, being the warden day in and day out runs counter to what they’re looking for in their relationships – and can be a lot of work! Most enjoy the feeling of being revered, worshiped, and adored. They want to set generic rules and structure, and not have to threaten or beat their submissives into compliance. In my vernacular, they prefer “submission” to “acquiescence” …the difference being that submission is driven by a desire to serve, whereas acquiescence is compliance driven by a desire to avoid consequence.

The conflict this establishes can take a toll on relationships. A person who is looking to establish a power dynamic using words like “worship” and “reverence”, is setting up an expectation that isn’t met (for most) by the imagery of the warden. Sometimes that dichotomy is realized very late in the dynamic’s development and can lead to all sorts of issues. If someone wants a warden, they need to be up-front about it. This is not just a porn issue (although porn tends to present the imagery of the warden in the guise of a full-time relationship – and for someone whose only exposure to power dynamics is through porn, that can be damaging), this is a communications issue. Talk about what you want. Define submission. Define dominance. Agree on your terms before you dive into the dynamic.

For me, I am my submissive’s queen. They operate within the guidelines I present – my preferences and expectations…the things that make me happy. They live within the purview of my land for as long as they want to. They are neither forced to comply, nor are they trapped against their will. They opt to serve me, each and every day they stay here. They are the “doers”; actively working to fulfill their role within the structure. They are citizens of my land; knights; valued contributors to my domain.

An Interview with Ms. Rika-Part 2

June 17, 2021 By Ms. Rika 1 Comment

sexy feet in fishnets — via stock.adobe.com

I recently was asked a series of questions regarding my relationships, my approach, and my experiences. After answering the 39 questions as honestly as I could, I thought that it might be a good idea to make a couple of articles out of it for KinkWeekly. Previously, I posted the answer to questions 1-20…here’s the rest of the interview:

21. Do you believe there are different formal levels of power dynamics? Which level are you two?

a. No. I don’t believe there are any such things. I believe people have fabricated them and published them…but they are not accepted outside of a small group. Same for Gorean roles and protocols. They exist for those who follow them. For everyone else, it’s just words. Not knocking them, but there are folks who think there is only the one way to live a lifestyle with “real” power dynamics…in my opinion, those folks are just filling themselves up with self-importance.

22. Being Dom-centric, are you free to do whatever you want and he will support and embrace that if it’s something you like and would please you?

a. Pretty much, yes. If it were not, we’d talk about it…but part of the agreement here is that my pleasure is his gospel. If he isn’t thinking that way, I’d want to know why. But honestly, if it were something that I liked that he HATED, would I really enjoy it if he went along with it? I would want to know he WOULD go along with it – and I would expect him to do so…but I might not hold him to it…because he’s my husband and I love him (oh…THAT again!)

23. Do you ever have disagreements about the lifestyle? Either of you want or don’t want something? How do those typically go? I know you said everything has to be consensual. But is there something you want that he isn’t into? Or vice-a-versa?

a. We disagree about things…I wouldn’t call them disagreements. We discuss them and my word is final. That’s basically it.

24. Do you have protocols in place?

a. We have Routine Tasks. Different than protocols in the Gorean sense. In play we have more than in regular life…but he does follow routines.

25. Would you say you are more dependent on his submission or is he more dependent on your dominance?

a. We’re equally dependent on our power dynamic for our fulfillment. We both consider ourselves highly lucky to have each other. We appreciate each other.

26. How were you able to train your sub to be what you wanted?

a. I don’t believe in “training” – I believe in “enabling”. I just finished writing an essay on this difference for “KinkWeekly.com”. He’s not an animal that can be “trained” like a dog or lion. He’s human: He thinks, he rationalizes, he introspects…he CHOOSES to serve. Therefore, my “training” is really more about EDUCATING him as to my preferences and expectations – and then providing feedback as to how he’s doing and giving him ideas for how to improve. CERAF is all about that.

27. Are there things he does not like to do?

a. Sure. He doesn’t like to eat his orgasms…but he loves to be made to do it. He doesn’t like to clean the house, but he does it every day. He doesn’t like to wake up early so that my breakfast is ready when I am…but he does it lovingly.

28. Does he grumble or complain?

a. Not for long. I don’t have to do much more than ask him if he really wants to be complaining…and it stops immediately.

29. If he has a bad day or isn’t feeling it, how do you deal with it? Do you still hold him to the dynamic? Do you make it harder or easier on him?

a. This is right out of my second book (Uniquely Us) with Karl and Rhonda. Yes, he has bad days. Yes, there are times when he doesn’t ‘feel it. In these circumstances, whether or not I hold him to it is my choice. That’s really the key. I may CHOOSE to relax my expectations…or not. If I do, he understands completely that I’m not relaxing them because they’re not important to me…he understands that I’m choosing to give him a break even though I absolutely COULD hold him to it…and have no qualms about doing so. I never want to leave him with the feeling that his service is not of primary importance to me…however, so is his health (physical and mental)…it is completely up to ME to make the judgement as to whether I feel he should be relieved.

30. Does anyone in your personal life know about your dynamic? Or have they noticed or said anything to either of you about his eagerness to help you and do things for you? I imagine they see your marriage/relationship in contrast to their own or what most vanilla relationships look like and wonder…?

a. No family members formally know. The kids (now grown and out on their own) might know, but never were exposed to anything that would confirm it for them. I have a couple of friends who know (and who have their own dynamics)…but I have a lot of friends who don’t know and who think I have the best husband in the world…and they’re right!

31. While he is doing chores or doing something to please you, what do you do? Are you often around doing something else? Watch TV, read a book?

a. Yup…I do relax. Sometimes I do things that I want to do (I’m big into something called “Pure Barre”, which is an exercise class to which I belong). It’s a treat for him if I interrupt him to do something menial for me while he’s doing his chores. He might be dusting the living room while I’m watching something on Netflix and I may call him in (interrupt his work) to hand me the glass of water that’s right in front of me, wait for me to take a sip, then have him put it back down, have him thank me, and then head back to continue his chores. He loves that kind of stuff…and so do I.

32. I’ve read you’re not into chastity cages, but I thought I’ve read where you’ve used them as fun or a gift to him…is that right? Do you see any benefit to the dom? I know self-control is expected…but is there a time where you recommend it? Or is it completely sub-centric?

a. I don’t dislike chastity cages. I think they’re fun toys. What I object to is the notion that they CREATE or IMPROVE submission. In my opinion, they’re far too sub-centric to be effective in encouraging actual submission. They can be excellent at creating acquiescence…or obedience…but neither of those are submission to me. So, they’re fun toys and tools for specific types of play. I see them the same way I see collars or handcuffs.

33. What does sub struggle with the most? How does he communicate that to you?

a. We talk a lot. We’re very open – particularly since the kids have been out of the house. He struggles with feelings of inadequacy when he can’t do something right. I have had a number of conversations where he has expressed depressed feelings when I’ve pointed out things he can do to improve his service. We get by those by readjusting his understanding of my comments to be a proactive and productive process to help him improve. That has worked well.

b. One of the couples in Uniquely Us, John and Liz, had a problem once where his task list had gotten too long for him to be able to handle. He had hundreds of items…and was drowning. Liz wanted to back off, but that made him get depressed. We ended up working together to help prune the list, reduce the frequency of adding to the list, and of helping him organize and group his tasks to ease his burden.

34. What keeps him motivated and encouraged? What keeps his battery charged and fully engaged to serving you? I believe, when your why gets bigger your how gets better…what is his “why” other than you.

a. The why has never been me. I’m not the reason he submits. I’m not making him submit to me. He makes him submit to me. He LOVES it. I LOVE it. He’s submitting for himself…submission is just defined by me. It’s called SELF-discipline…and it’s key to being an excellent submissive!

35. What is a day in the life of your sub look like?

a. I’ve written this before…it’s long. Let’s just cover the first couple of hours: He wakes up before me. In our bathroom, he’ll prep my things, clean my brush, put toothpaste on my toothbrush. He will sit on the toilet seat to pee so that it’s warmer for me when I get there (about 1/2 an hour later, usually). He then cleans the toilet from the night’s activity (we don’t flush it at night, as it wakes me up). In the winter, he turns on the towel warmer. Then he heads downstairs. He prepares coffee, breakfast, my lunch. He cleans the floors, empties the dishwasher, straightens up. He may go out and do grocery shopping or put gas in the family car. He sometimes prepares grilled chicken for lunches for the week. He will go through my emails and delete the spam. When he hears me stirring upstairs, he starts my breakfast (which we will have discussed before we go to sleep). He froths the milk for my coffee and everything is waiting when I come downstairs. We eat together. We talk. I do a lot of emails and stuff. He cleans up while I get ready to start my day. That’s kind of a typical morning.

36. Have you guys ever stopped the dynamic because of a disagreement or disgruntlement and later start back?

a. Nope. Never had a fight. Really.

37. What does a fight look like between you?

a. Never had a fight…REALLY. 33+ years of marriage and no fights. Honestly.

38. How do you two exit on and off the one way street to the two way street? On the one way street, it’s all about you and what you say goes. On the two way street, you two are equal. Is that hard to navigate back and forth? Does it take a awhile to transition back to the one way street? Is there a protocol to getting back onto the one way street? Are there exits and ramps to help the transition?

a. The streets are an analogy, not an actual tool. You use the streets to help resolve misunderstandings, position intent, and make sense of what already transpired. You don’t use them to make stuff happen.

39. Have you struggled through the dynamic? How?

a. No more than the regular family. Fear, isolation, restricted freedoms…everyone is in this together. Aside from worrying about my family, it’s been nice that the hubby and I were both working from home (before I retired at the end of the year! Nice!). We’ve been comfortable being together…if anything it’s made us even tighter. Now that we’re all vaccinated and able to socialize together again as a family, it’s a wonderful relief. It’s not over, but it definitely feels better! Mother’s day was spent with our grandson (our first) and my mother in-law…so she saw her great-grandson for the first time. Not a bad Mother’s Day!

An Interview with Rika (Part 1)

June 4, 2021 By Ms. Rika 2 Comments

1. How did your power dynamic with your primary sub (your husband) start? Who initiated it?

a. When we first met, we played a lot of stereotypical power games. B&D and some D&S. Basically, I did things to him and made him do things to me. I was already playing these kinds of games with other boyfriends and he had already done so with his girlfriends. It wasn’t until we were thinking about marriage – and the notion of this arrangement carrying on for the rest of our lives in a 24/7 context, that I changed the approach to be dominant-centric. I could not see living the sub-centric approach 24/7. I was (and still am) willing to play from time-to-time – and really enjoy blowing his fantasy circuits out of the water – but for a 24/7 dynamic (what both of us wanted), it had to be more “real”.

2. What did you or your sub think when the idea was first suggested? How did you introduce each other to the dynamic?

a. The playtime was natural…we were both playing games with prior partners. It was discussed early and we started playing almost right away. It was I who introduced the notion of the change to dominant-centricity. He had brought up full-time, 24/7 lifestyle dynamics – and I introduced him to the concept that I was OK with that – but on a different set of terms. He was completely free to not accept it – and we still would have played games from time to time – but we both were interested in a full-time dynamic…so it had to work for both of us…but it had to start with what worked for me.

3. Did it start as a full 24/7 D/s relationship, or did it evolve into that?

a. Once we decided we were going to get married, and decided to follow a dominant-centric approach, it was right away.

4. What did it feel like in the beginning? Did it feel fake? How did you make it real?

a. I believe this question is really the difference between sub-centric 24/7 and dominant centric 24/7. Playing games 24/7 is unrealistic. Trying to be someone you’re not 24/7 is awful, unfulfilling, and unsustainable. To make it last, it had to be real. It had to be real submission. It had to be about serving me for who I am. I was more than willing to allow him to submit to me, but he would have to submit to ME…who I am…without me having to pretend I’m some persona.

5. How often do you give your sub a gift?

a. He enjoys treats pretty often….and I enjoy giving them to him. I love to see him happy and fulfilled. He’s my husband and I love him. I am free to do so BECAUSE we both have an understanding that those treats are NOT submission. That frees me. One thing that I really enjoy – and is sort of a treat – is T&D. Because of that, he gets teased A LOT. He seldom goes a day without thinking he might get off…and he only gets off when I want him to – could be twice a day for a week or once every two weeks…he never knows. So, if that means that he gets a treat every day (the tease with or without the denial), then I’d say he gets it every day. For him, my feet are a real treat. So, I sometimes make him bow and kiss my feet – or lick the soles of my footwear clean (Saturday, I did some gardening in a pair of Wellies and had him lick the dirt off of them after they dried…he loved it. Honestly, it does nothing for me other than enjoying his enjoyment). That happens every few days, I guess. No schedules…I don’t like to be obligated or on a timeframe…ever.

6. Are there things he likes or wants that you do not?

a. Anal play is not really something I enjoy. Penetrating him, by the way. I have no problem with him worshiping my butt ��! I also won’t do needles…which is something he had wanted to try. I’m not really interested in drawing blood.

7. Has he given you a list of gifts that he likes or would like…or how do you know what he likes if he doesn’t?

a. The Task List exercise exposed a bunch of things that he enjoys. The things that fall into the “things that don’t turn me off, but are not something I consider to be submission to me” are all good material for treats.

b. We talk. We talk openly about this stuff…we have the framing of my methodology, which serves as a perfect context for our discussions. We both know the vernacular and we both can speak freely in a way that fits our dynamic.

8. Would that be inappropriate for him to make a list of gifts?

a. Only if I didn’t ask for it.

9. If there are gift that you know would really be special to him, but you’re not into it, do you ever bend and give him that gift?

a. Sure…as long as it’s not something that really squicks me, or crosses some line of appropriateness (which is unlikely from him)

10. How do you keep the wheels of the lifestyle aligned?

a. Not sure what you mean by this…we live the lifestyle…it’s always in play. It’s as aligned as our lives.

11. How does your sub keep your happiness and interests his top priority?

a. It’s something he wants to do. He’s not perfect though…he sometimes hits a funk, or gets a little selfish, or even acts up. On those occasions, the trick for me is to notice it and act right away – the action is a discussion: I remind him that submitting to me is something HE wants. I confirm that he still wants to. Then we focus on what he’s doing, how I’m feeling, and determine if there’s a causation between the two. He then makes the adjustment. This used to happen a lot in the beginning of the dynamic…but nowadays, hardly ever. I also take this opportunity to check myself: Am I neglecting our dynamic? Am I failing to recognize his efforts in an appropriate manner? If so, I make that correction.

12. Does your sub have a schedule of chores or tasks that he does every day?

a. Yes…as a result of the Routine Task List, he has over 100 tasks. There are about 40 of those that are done daily. They’re not all big things…so 40 isn’t really an extraordinary number.

13. Do you inspect all of his work?

a. No – that would be more work for me. But I’m careful to let him know that I recognize that he’s doing it…that I care that he does it well…and that I care that he does it to serve me. I never want him to feel alone in the dynamic. He’s doing a lot of things…every day…every minute of every day. He’s busy serving me. It would be easy to take that for granted…but it would be poison to do so. He needs to know I know he’s working hard for me. I want him to know that I appreciate his submission. I thank him for his submission regularly…not for the things he does, but for why he’s doing them.

14. How has your power dynamic evolved over the years? Does it look different today than it did at the beginning?

a. Definitely has changed. I’ve grown; he’s grown; the dynamic has grown. We discovered things that no longer work for us, we’ve removed them. We’ve learned new things about what does work for us, we’ve added those. Our discussions with others regarding the methodology – the process of writing the books – working with other couples – all of these things have the effect of growing the methodology and our dynamic. It has become more grounded in reality – and continues to become more and more woven into our lives.

15. Has your philosophy changed over the years?

a. Not since I developed the methodology. The methodology has stayed remarkably consistent through the years. The communication of the methodology has changed, quite a bit, based on how well others grasp it – but the basic concepts of dominant-centricity, treats / gifts, CERAF, have not.

16. What made you write your first book, Uniquely Rika?

a. Uniquely Rika was an attempt to describe the methodology that I had developed within my own relationships. I found myself on IRC and Compuserve, talking to many people about it – and started to compile my answers to questions. My message started to take shape and gain structure…so I decided to write it all down. Then I decided to publish it!

17. You said you’ve always been dominant in previous relationships. Has your sub husband always been submissive in previous relationships?

a. Yes. He has always played the submissive role in the games he played with prior partners and with me before the methodology.

18. You mentioned in your books, you don’t believe in punishment. Have you ever punished your sub? Not “funishment”…but actual punishment?

a. Yes. And I didn’t like it. I’m not my sub’s mother. In my early days, I’d give subs stair time, whippings, kneeling on rice, etc…I never saw real change. I saw fear…but no real behavioral change.

19. How do you keep the dynamic real and fresh so there are no ruts?

a. Who said there are no ruts? This is reality. There are ruts. You work though them. You talk. You sit down together and say, “you know, we haven’t been ourselves lately…what’s going on?” And then you work through it.

20. I’ve read in other books there is a difference between and sub and slave. Do you agree? Is your sub more slave or sub?

a. It’s all labels. Labels are meaningless. Some people see Master Slave as being a (mock) ownership and others see it as top/bottom. It doesn’t mean anything to me. I generally call my husband my “slave” and my other subs my “subs”…mostly because my husband can’t just walk away. He’s going to have to deal with me whether we have a power dynamic or not! ��

To be continued…

Pavlovian (Lack Of Responsiveness): Subs Are Not Animals

May 27, 2021 By Ms. Rika 2 Comments

hot sexy Domme with whip, male submissive — via stock.adobe.com

In my discussions with folks in the scene as well as folks who want to get into the scene, I’ve come across the notion that subs can be trained “like animals”; that they can be conditioned, usually through some sort of Pavlovian trigger, to respond to cause and effect and behave – perhaps without conscious acknowledgement – in accordance with the dominant’s desires. There are many folks, usually dog or horse trainers, who swear by the notion that subs will subconsciously respond to verbal and visual triggers through the use of repetition and positive / negative reinforcement – and that by using such techniques, one can create the perfect submissive.

I’m not a believer. At least, I’m not of the belief that it works the same way as it does with animals. I believe that there is far more complexity in the form of consent, negotiation, and agreement when it comes to humans. I don’t feel you “train” a sub; you “enable” them.

I acknowledge that there are many who will swear that training techniques do work the same way as it does with animals and have the “experience” to prove it. I challenge their experience: It is my belief that many submissives WANT to be trained and LOVE the idea of being ‘out of control’ – acting automatically ‘without will’ – and therefore, the techniques of animal training – interpreted as a kinky game and a means to those ends – motivates the sub to go along with the training. The end result LOOKS like Pavlovian training, but is actually only effective as long as the sub is willing to play along. When push comes to shove, the submissive is voluntarily complying…because it suits them. Unlike Pavlovian conditioning, the result is not subconscious at all…in fact, it’s quite the opposite.

The difference between humans and animals, is that humans rationalize. A human doesn’t just respond to stimulus, they analyze why that stimulus occurred and choose how to respond to it. If someone is creating a “Cause and effect” scenario for them, they seek to understand the motivation of that person; they intellectually recognize how the manipulation is intended to work. Humans may agree and react to that manipulation, but, unlike an animal, they are consciously aware of the motivation and intent of the actions and make a conscious decision to comply. That’s how humans work…and subs are humans (most of them!).

If you give a dog a treat every time it sits up and gives you its paw, it will eventually associate those things. Animals learn cause and effect. A dog will do the trick without knowing why you want them to do so. It does it without knowing they’re being trained. They just know that if they do this, they get that…so they do this if they want that.

A sub will also associate the treat with the trick; however, it is far deeper than that. The sub knows that the dominant is advancing this compensation. The sub understands that the dominant wants him to sit up and offer a paw … and that in order to get him to do that, the dominant is offering something that the sub wants in return (or something the sub wants to avoid – in the case of negative enforcement).

For some submissives, just having the dominant interested in training them in this way is enough to get them to comply. The compensation doesn’t even matter. It’s enough that the dominant enjoys the “game of training” and they are excited by the prospect that they will respond in a Pavlovian manner – so they choose to comply.

For others the sub is deciding – assessing the quality of the compensation and determining if it is ‘good enough’ to ‘earn’ their compliance. They feel in control of determining what it will take to “train them”. They may even choose to try to escalate the compensation over time, by slowing down the reaction time between cause and effect, in an attempt to prompt the dominant to increase the cause to obtain the same effect. You don’t see animals playing that game (if you can get a paw for a cookie, you don’t see the dog suddenly start to refuse to give you their paw unless you give them TWO cookies).

To me, training a sub is more about enabling them than manipulating them. I’m not trying to build up subconscious reactions to stimuli – there is an “automaton / Stepford” fantasy that’s just not my thing – My approach to “training” is to make sure my objectives and expectations are clear to the submissive and assure that they have the skills and materials to get the job done to the best of their ability. I’m not threatening them with what will happen if they don’t comply, nor am I rewarding them when they do. I’m simply assessing their performance and providing the feedback necessary (positive and negative) to demonstrate that I recognize their efforts and am interested in helping them to improve themselves. I’m completely open with my assessment – their sense of fulfillment when they’ve done a great job and I’m thrilled with their work, is its own reward…and conversely, if they are not hitting the mark, their own motivation to improve.

Ultimately, a sub who is motivated to be the best they can be, will seek out the assessment and demonstrate the self-discipline to improve. They will internalize your goals and objectives as their own. I don’t need to manipulate them. As a dominant, my job is to be extremely clear in communication of my preferences and expectations; to openly expect them to strive to meet those objectives; to recognize their efforts, assess them, and provide the feedback necessary to let them know how well they are meeting their goal; and to give them adjustments to help them improve when they’re not. The long termed goal, for both of us, is for them to learn to become the best submissive – for me – that they can possibly be.

Does Submission Need to Include Sacrifice?

May 14, 2021 By Ms. Rika 4 Comments

two sexy submissives in gas masks — via stock.adobe.com

I was, as I often do, reading some posts in Fetlife this morning. As I read through the posts, I noticed the recurring notion that submissives “sacrifice” things: Their freedom, their desires, their dignity. The common belief is that submissives “give up” parts of themselves in order to serve the dominant. That, in order to serve the dominant, they need to deprive themselves (or be deprived) of something they want. To further the stereotypes: They are often either manipulated into this sacrifice, or want to sacrifice to a dominant who will gladly make them do so.

I got around to thinking about my submissives. I’ve never thought about them sacrificing for me…this is what THEY want to do. I came to the realization that while they give a lot, they don’t actually GIVE UP anything.

I sat down and discussed this with my husband (who is my slave). His answer was telling:

“If I think about the way dominance and submission are depicted in videos, then it’s pretty clear that the submissives are ‘put upon’ to do what the dominant wants. They are usually ‘forced’ to do so, actually. They are often acting against their will and acting like they ‘have’ to do things that they don’t, or wouldn’t, want to do. If that’s the case, then yes, they’re sacrificing…they’re sacrificing their own wills and their own desires in favor of the dominant’s. But I don’t feel that way about my submission to you. I’m not sacrificing any of myself…I’m not forced to serve you. I CHOOSE to serve you. I WANT to serve you. In serving you, in doing what you want and placing those desires in front of my own, I am getting exactly what I want. In fact, if I were not able to serve you, I’d be sacrificing – because I would have to give up my ultimate enjoyment.”

His answer got me thinking: Why does submission need to be a negative thing? Why do we think the submissive is “oppressed”? My husband is certainly not oppressed.

So this brings up the obvious paradox: If a man wishes to ‘sacrifice’…and is given the opportunity to do so…is he really sacrificing? Isn’t this really what’s at the root of submission? There is a reason that submissives submit: It’s not because they HAVE to…that’s capitulation and acquiescence…it’s because they CHOOSE to. Submission is a conscious dedication to the dominant. Submissives WANT to submit.

This paradox is as old as time, but how it conflicts with reality seems to underlie a lot of fantasy activities. The fantasy is to sacrifice…but to be allowed to sacrifice is not a sacrifice. Submissives want to feel they have sacrificed…many want to be forced to sacrifice – and yet, the very nature of free will and consent take that away. The reality is, SSC (Safe, Sane, and Consensual), keeps the fantasy a fantasy! If you crossed the line and actually forced a submissive to sacrifice, it would be considered abuse.

So submissives who want that fantasy need to artificially manufacture the illusion of sacrifice. They crave manipulation, they want to be forced to capitulate. Many want to be put in chastity devices to sacrifice sexual freedom, or want to live in bondage and desolate servitude…or sign contracts (even if they have no legal meaning). They invent terms like TPE (Total Power Exchange) and CNC (Consensual Non-Consent) to obfuscate consensual sacrifice and make it look as though there is no free will – when, in fact, you can’t actually give up free will (because there will always be legal recourse to get it back).

But submission is given a bum-wrap for this imagery. The fantasy is what people see – and what the general public associates with power dynamics. The fantasy of sacrifice and oppression is what applies pressure on spouses and partners who want to be served, but don’t want to oppress. It’s what some submissives point to when defining what dominance “has to be.”

It’s what I’ve been combatting with my methodology for more than a dozen years.

In reality, submission is not sacrifice. Submission, for my husband and many others, is fulfillment. Submission is their freedom. They are not ‘giving up’ anything at all…they are ‘obtaining’ fulfillment of their desires. You can play games and enact fantasies, but ultimately, the actual submission is voluntary – the devotion of submission is fulfilling and enlivening.

On Discipline

May 6, 2021 By Ms. Rika 4 Comments

naked male sub bound — via stock.adobe.com

As we all know, one of the composite phrases in the acronym, BDSM, is B&D: Bondage and Discipline. In this context, discipline is defined as actions that are applied to the submissive, while the submissive is bound and incapable to resist. Discipline could be impact play, humiliation, chores, etc. Urban Dictionary has a reasonable definition for B&D: “used in reference to practices involving physical restraint and punishment”

Of course, “Discipline” has other meanings, both within, and outside of the context of B&D. The Oxford definition has several, two of which are particularly pertinent to this discussion. The first is also often thought of in a BDSM context: “The practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience.” The second interpretation offered by Oxford hits home for me in a big way: “Training oneself to do something in a controlled and habitual way”.

In a sense, the subtle differences between these two definitions harken back to my discussion on the different viewpoints people have on submission: That submission is either the passive or active role. There are those who feel that submission is about having things done TO you by a dominant, whereas others (like myself) prefer to think of submission as being dedicated to doing things FOR a dominant that the dominant feels is FOR them. In the first, submission is passive: Things are done to you. In the second, submission is active: You are doing things for the dominant.

In this same way, the first definition of discipline is about doing TO the submissive. The submissive is the recipient of training; the recipient of punishment and adjustment. The goal of this discipline is obedience, as defined by the dominant. The dominant is the one doing the discipline…the sub is accepting it. This is what many people think of as submission. The goal of the submissive is to ACCEPT the discipline and adjust their behavior.

The second definition is focused on the submissives themselves. The submissive is structuring their own behavior to act in a specific way. They are providing and generating the energy required to enforce their own desired traits. They are motivated by an “ideal behavior”.

For those who have talked to me, read my books, or read my articles here in KinkWeekly, you already know that my preference is for subs to be self-disciplined. Self-discipline, in a power dynamic as a submissive, implies that the ideal behavior to which you are aspiring, is known to serve the dominant the way the dominant prefers to be served. The dominant sets and communications the ideal, the submissive works to achieve it.

This is very different than having discipline thrust upon you. When you are “trained to obey”, your behavior is motivated by the consequences of not obeying. The discipline is manifested in the form of punishment and behavior modification. Contrast this to self-discipline, in which the dominant communicates desired behavior and the submissive chooses to structure themselves to deliver against that specification, motivated by their desire to serve the dominant in the best way they can.

To me, this is fundamentally the difference between “Submission” and “Acquiescence”. Read my article on this subject, or my books, for more information about this distinction.

So, when a sub boasts about how much they can accept, absorb, or endure…when they talk about punishment and the need for restriction in order to remain focused on serving – I quickly lose interest. I have no interest in manipulating submission. My interest is in defining submission clearly, so that my submissives can provide the self-discipline needed to fulfill their need to submit to me.

A sub who demonstrates discipline is far more valuable to me than one who accepts discipline. If you’re a dominant and feel the same way, communicate that to your submissives. Change the way they think of submission. If you’re a submissive, consider that your dominant may prefer you to be more self disciplined…and may not have even thought it “proper” to ask it. I strongly recommend that you use these definitions as a discussion-point to help you further define your power dynamic with your partners. It’s one of many steps on the road to mutual fulfillment!

Ms. Rika

Footer