Ms. Rika

Managing Multiple Subs

April 24, 2021 By Ms. Rika 2 Comments

two sexy submissives in gas masks — 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 of my articles in KinkWeekly!

A couple of days ago, I was asked a question regarding managing the problems of having multiple subs who serve you at the same time. As my readers know, I’m not talking about multiple play partners, but rather, multiple partners who are striving to fulfill my expectations, desires, and preferences.

The question was how I avoid the problems of multiple partners, particularly in the area of sexuality – how I manage intimacy with different subs. The person asking was having trouble rationalizing multiple partners and how to split your time, attention, and commitment between them.

This person was seeing all sorts of problems with treating all subs “equally”, yet having some who are closer than others, and what that does to them in terms of jealousy and competition.

This became yet another excellent use of the “layers” concepts (rather than rehash that here, I refer you to my books, fetlife, or other articles that discuss the layers analogy). Bottom line, the way I look at power dynamics simplifies these questions. The layers concept views D/s relationships as relationships (of some sort) to which we’ve added a power dynamic. I currently have D/s relationships with 4 people. All of them are dedicated to serving me in whatever way I define their submission. They’re all my submissives and the power dynamic with all of them is very similar.

However, their underlying relationships are very different: One is my husband, one is the husband of a close friend, one is basically my lawyer and the fourth is a friend, turned business associate.

Naturally, the relationship I have with my husband is very different than those I have with the other 3 – however, it’s not because of a difference in the power dynamic (or their intent within the power dynamic) – it’s due to differences in the underlying relationship type. Clearly, one doesn’t feel the same way about a friend than they do about a spouse – with or without a power dynamic! You trust your spouse more than your lawyer (lawyer jokes aside). You communicate better with your business partner than the husband of a friend (you hope).

Resolving the Paradoxes

The way the person had asked the question conflated relationship-level attributes with power dynamic level attributes and hence, they were having trouble resolving the paradoxes: How can you have the same type of power dynamic with someone you love versus a friend? How does your spouse have more privilege than your friend without jealousy?

For me, it’s simple: I have relatively equal power dynamics with very different types of relationships…and therefore the blended whole of each relationship is very different. But from the perspective of the power dynamics – how they serve me – their intent – the rules they live by — those things are nearly identical.

The question about sexuality is moot when considered within the context of this separation: Sex is something that (at least for me) depends on the underlying relationship type. Whether I am sexual with someone has nothing to do with their service to me, it has to do with the type of underlying relationship we have.

If you’re not the type to have sex with the husband of a friend, or your lawyer, or your business associate, then you’re not going to have sex with them if they’re your submissive! So, I don’t have sex with those submissives. I do, however, have sex with my husband. The fact that they’re all my submissives doesn’t change that…because it’s not the power layer that defines the sexual component of our overall relationships.

The other subs understand this separation – they don’t feel jealousy because they understand that, while they are equals when it comes to submission, they are not on equal footing in the underlying relationship. They don’t EXPECT to have that type of intimacy, because theirs is not that type of relationship.

The Team Approach

When it comes to managing the submission of multiple partners, the number one rule is that they operate as a team: My submissives comprise “Team Rika”. The overall success of Team Rika is my happiness – how well the overall team serves me. It has nothing to do with the relative position or performance of any particular team member. Each team member brings their strengths to the team and together they fill in each other’s weaknesses. They work together to be the best team they can be. They can only succeed together.

I have a couple of rules of thumb that govern this team, which help to eliminate jealousy and competition – both of which are poison to a multiple-partner dynamic:

1) I segment the areas of their focus. I don’t assign two submissives the same area of my life. If one sub manages the kitchen, another one manages transportation, another will manage wardrobe, another will manage the garden, etc. This keeps them out of each other’s hair and avoids two of them trying to serve me in the same space.

2) Competition is the enemy of good teamwork. A lot of folks believe that you get the best out of a person when you make them compete. This is true for the performance of an individual, but I don’t believe it’s the best solution for a team. The focus of each team member must be the performance of the team, not their particular performance.

3) Due to #2, a sub who is competitive has lost sight of the ultimate goal of the team, and will no longer be allowed to serve. They will be given opportunity to change their ways, but ultimately, if I feel they are continuing to act in a counter-productive manner to the benefit of the team, I will remove them from the team – no matter what they’re bringing in terms of individual performance. The health of the team is far more important than any one person. I have luckily only had to do this once in almost 30 years.

4) I don’t show favorites. As I already discussed, the underlying relationship types factor into the overall relationship and how I treat that partner, however, as far as the power dynamic is concerned, everyone is held to the same standard. Everyone is expected to strive to fulfill their commitment to the dynamic. I provide equal assessment and feedback, simple gifts, clear communications of my expectations, recognition, and active attention.

5) Tattling is a big ‘no-no’. I’m not interested in individual guilt or assignment of blame. The team succeeds or fails together. The team needs to work within itself to grow. They need to help each other and correct each other. They share a common objective and if they keep their focus on that objective, they will help each other work through their differences and insecurities. Personal goals are most visible when you take your eye off the team’s goals. It’s fine to want yourself to succeed, but if that surpasses your focus on the objective of the team, you’re priorities are out of alignment.

Wrap up

This is not an easy thing to manage multiple submissives, however, it is very doable when you understand the forces at play. As the dominant, you need to be clear as to your expectations – not only regarding how they serve you, but also their responsibilities to each other. When a team is functioning well, it feels effortless. If you find yourself resolving conflicts, managing egos, reassuring insecurities – then something is amiss within your team and you need to snuff it as quickly as possible. Determine the root cause and if you can’t remediate it, eliminate it. Your team will serve you well – and a well functioning team will serve you better than any one person can.

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

What Would Happen Without Shame and Embarrassment In the BDSM/Kink Community?

April 17, 2021 By Ms. Rika 2 Comments

mistress dominating male slave on leash — via stock.adobe.com

Today’s thoughts evolved from another article I read regarding a news broadcast on feminism, in which a female participant “admitted” to attending “spanking camp”: A BDSM-oriented gathering that focused on corporal punishment. The author mentioned that, while they were happy that BDSM was being discussed in an open and positive forum, they were disappointed in the amount of shame the woman felt – and the way the interviewer continued down the shameful manner of referring to the event. The notion that a woman could enjoy being spanked (or participating in BDSM as a bottom or submissive) was creating guilt and shame based on how it seemed to run against feminist principles.

Don’t worry…my column today isn’t about feminism vs. BDSM. It’s about the concepts of shame and embarrassment – where they come from – and why they’re powerful in power dynamics.

The statement got me thinking about the shame and embarrassment of many of the practices of power play and, more exactly, if we were to remove the stigma behind the acts – remove the shame – would we participate in them?

Many of us play with “Humiliation” within our scenes. We have the stereotypes of foot worship, ass kissing, bowing, humbling, exposure (e.g., CFNM, etc.), degradation, etc. These are practices that play with the creation of shame and embarrassment within the submissive. They are so engrained in the social imagery of BDSM, that they are often automatically brought to mind when we think about power dynamics. So, I began to wonder:

If the shame were removed…if the actions were stripped to the core of simply being what they are, without the emotional implications of what the action MEANS…would people still engage in them?

Of course, for me, this question gets back to my favorite topic of intent (oh my, what a surprise!). I tend to feel that the pleasure we feel is a reaction to our intent in carrying out the activity – more than the activity itself. If the action were stripped of its implied meaning, or if our partner weren’t on the same page as to the implied meaning, we wouldn’t partake in the activity. For example, would you really bow before someone, if it wasn’t understood to represent subjugation and submission? Another way to look at it: If someone bowed before you, but didn’t feel that bowing was a symbol of relative power, would it have any meaning?

Rather than being humiliating or shameful, these acts are SYMBOLS of intent that we interpret in our dynamics. They need to be MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD to be effective. Both partners need to be on the same page as to what the implied intent is, or the action will not have similar impact on the partners. Part of our communications in our relationships would therefore need to be a definition of intent for these actions. I go back to “Define before you Opine” and the importance of understanding the “unique definition of submission to a specific dominant”.

Some folks believe that D/s not only involves the intent of a sub to submit to a dominant, but it involves a wide variety of ritualized behaviors that serve to confirm this intent and enhance the sub’s sense of submission and the dominant’s sense of Domination. Humiliation serves to enhance this sense of D/s.

Interestingly, these acts do not equate to submission to me. I feel nothing when a guy kisses my foot…really. I mean, if I know what it means to him, I’ll feel something – but again, it’s not the act of kissing my foot, it’s his reaction to it that stimulates me. It’s his INTENT in doing it that gets me going. It’s what’s going on in his mind that has meaning, as long as I’m aware of what that is.

Take, for example, bowing: It could be argued that an observer would interpret bowing as an act of submission or respect. I would argue that there is a MAJOR difference between submission and respect! Which does a person who bows before me INTEND? If he’s of certain cultures, it may well be respect, and not at all submission. Submission is not just placing someone in a position of respect…It’s about dedication and commitment. Although a bow MIGHT accompany such a commitment, the bow itself doesn’t equal that commitment! The bow doesn’t matter – the intent of the bow does.

Is there a chain of thought that these acts thought of as submission, are deeply ingrained in our social consciousness? Is it evidenced by the fact that they mimic rituals of domination and submission that have always been part of our culture, and at least some practices, such as spanking, may have always been part of our behavioral repertoire?

In my opinion, this is a stereotype, used, not only in porn images of BDSM, but in more mainstream media depictions of power dynamics, and therefore it is an accepted reality. I’m challenging the stereotypes in MY dynamics because they don’t fulfill MY definition of submission. I have found that they don’t fit many people’s perception. In my dealings with couples, I always advise that, before you base your reality on a stereotype, be sure it matches the reality of your partner! It may not.

When you engage in a power dynamic, you need to understand your partner, determine their preferences, and learn their imagery. You need to discuss the definition of submission and get on the same page as to what is, and what isn’t, service to that dominant. Only then can you establish a power dynamic that has meaning your unique dynamic!

Do You Need to Earn the Right to Submit?

April 10, 2021 By Ms. Rika 2 Comments

sexy power exchange couple, submissive blindfolded — via stock.adobe.com

I got a note this morning from a dominant friend of mine, sharing the frustrations she, and many dominant women, have when taking on new subs. Her question was whether subs should have to prove themselves to be worthy of being allowed to submit, or be put in a position of submission and then prove their ability within the role.

From my days in management (outside of D/s dynamics), I can tell you that, most of the time, people prove their ability to do a higher-level job before they’re assigned to it. It is a much less frequent practice to give someone a “chance to succeed” at a position. It’s done…but not nearly as often. This is usually because positions are often coveted and highly competitive and there’s no need to take the risk associated with having the wrong person in a position of responsibility.

If I take the analogy back to D/s dynamics, the reasons for qualifying an individual before allowing them to submit to you, boil down to the risks associated with them not being able to perform as expected. What are the risks associated with taking a chance on a submissive?

The risks boil down to the amount of work that will end up on the dominant. The downside puts the dominant to the task of identifying flaws in the sub’s efforts, determining how to communicate and correct them, and then following up to make sure the corrections are made. Even worse, they may find themselves needing to “motivate” the submissive…to create the energy to get them to serve. They can easily then lose confidence that the submissive will perform other tasks to the level of performance that’s acceptable and need to make constant judgements regarding whether to trust a submissive with a particular task, or not.

As those of you who have read my books and other posts and essays know, I’m a firm believer that having a submissive makes my life EASIER. If having a submissive makes my life more complicated, gives me less time to do what I want to do, or forces me to do things I don’t want to do, then something is very wrong.

My friend brought up the point that often submissives want to be given the position and then be ‘trained’. The whole “Training” thing is something I’m particularly against. I don’t train my submissives, but I do educate them. I want them to understand my preferences and expectations and to internalize them, so that they become their own. When they act, they act in concert with fulfilling those expectations.

A quick web lookup on the differences between training and educating highlights this well:

Training refers to an act of inculcating specific skills in a person. Education is all about gaining theoretical knowledge in the classroom or any institution. Training is a way to develop specific skills, whereas education is a typical system of learning.

I am all for communicating to a submissive and teaching them general terms of how to be my submissive, but I’m not interested training them like an animal. The skills they need to serve me, they either come to the table with – or are able to develop based on their understanding of the objective and their ability to learn.

So, no…I’m not going to pick a submissive and try to train them to serve me. They’re going to have opportunity to prove they’re a good learner and have the ability to apply general principles to develop specific skills.

Does a prospective submissive possess the intelligence, empathy, awareness, self-awareness, dedication, and energy needed to be good at it? That seems to me to be an awful lot to expect to just blossom in front of you. Sure, it’s possible – but are you willing to put up with the effort required to discover it can’t?

For me, I would rather get to know a prospective submissive before allowing them to submit to me. During that time, I’m assessing a lot about their personality, their real interests, their ability to be dominant-centric, and their intelligence. I’m qualifying them to be a submissive, not based on any particular skill, but rather based on the qualities that make learning happen. Are they going to be a good student? Are they driven by a passion to serve? Are they going to be able to exhibit the self-control to maintain their dedication – without burdening me with the need to force, or enforce, it?

Therefore, from my viewpoint, you don’t get to submit and then prove you can do it. You also don’t prove you can submit – you exhibit your natural abilities to learn and adapt and you exhibit your internal desire to serve. You show me why, in particular, you want to serve ME – and not just any woman. Then, I can feel comfortable with the discussion that leads to your submission.

I would love to hear your opinions!

Overcoming Obstacles to General Acceptance Requires Focus on the D/s in BDSM

April 2, 2021 By Ms. Rika 2 Comments

sexy Domme with whip — via stock.adobe.com

I am confident that there will come a time, when relationships with power dynamics will be commonly accepted in our culture. We are already seeing signs of it in popular media: BDSM has become a bit more “mainstream”; moving beyond its presence in fashion and showing up in more real ways. Power dynamics are plots and sub-plots in the shows we view at home, in the movie theaters, and in books.

BDSM is arriving, but not “all of it”. B&D and S&M are being depicted, but D/s is lagging far behind! In many ways, it’s easier to depict BDSM without D/s. It’s relatively easy to have actors “do things to each other” than to pull off the deeper character development needed to portray a committed D/s dynamic convincingly and so, for impact value, ease of production, and perhaps out of lack of understanding, media has embraced S&M and B&D and foregone the emotional commitment of D/s.

This creates some issues, not the least of which is that the imagery of B&D and S&M, particularly as portrayed within the media, is very closely aligned with the imagery of abuse, biker-outlaws, Nazism, and psychotics! As someone who just wants to engage in consensual healthy power dynamics, this is quite troublesome.

As I’ve pointed out previously, power dynamics in media, which is a critical first step in acceptance in culture, is in its infancy. We are barely beginning to be introduced to characters of substance, who have a healthy interest in D/s; who do not have to be damaged by childhood trauma, or psychotic drive as an excuse to enjoy open power exchange. Only barely…for most of the characters still suffer from some aspect of that excuse, or are portrayed as comedic shills – wild, out-there characters who will push any norm. We have not yet seen a character within a power dynamic, who does not require a “reason” for being involved in it. It is not “normal” yet – and therefore needs an explanation to be believable.

This is going to change. Much the way interracial relationships used to be verboten – then accepted with excuse – and now presented everywhere, without calling any attention to itself; power dynamics will eventually be portrayed as a matter of course – a sub-text – and nothing out of the ordinary. We will eventually relate to the characters in such a way that they will be able to accept their interests without need for explanation. We will get to the point where we won’t need to understand Joe and Mary’s childhood experiences to accept that they are a happily married couple – and Mary chooses to serve Joe as his submissive”. We’ll just accept that and be focused on the real plot of the show.

I hope to live long enough to see the day…but I do believe it WILL happen.

What are the obstacles standing in the way of making this happen? The first problem to overcome is to establish that people can choose to be dominant or submissive without it reflecting a weakness or a flaw in their character. We still seem to need an explanation – a reason why someone would want to stray from the perceived norm. The assumption is that there HAS to be something lacking or damaged in the personalities.

There is a learned resistance to power dynamics that stems from society’s proactive attempts to criminalize abuse. Due to the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of women, and the movement against discrimination of all types – there is an overarching sensitivity to repression and imbalance. We naturally want to repel any unfairness. However, conflating consensual power dynamics with these examples of non-consensual abuse is misleading, and harmful.

Even once we can clarify the difference between consensual power dynamics and non-consensual abuse, there are still other obstacles to overcome. Gender bias very much sways acceptance. The generalization is that men tend to be dominant and women tend to be submissive. Intellectually, we know how wrong that stereotype is. It has been a high obstacle for rebellion in women’s rights activists who have had to fight it. Even though our young generations are being raised without that assumption, it’s still present and impacts the way media portrays the dynamics.

If I were to present a show where Joe is Mary’s master, the audience would accept the premise. Of course, the feminist mentality in all of us would challenge the producers with claims that the relationship is setting back women’s independence by many years and there would be flack for allowing the stereotype to be perpetuated, but no one would challenge the nature of the arrangement. The audience would never challenge why Joe wants to be the dominant. They would even accept that Mary is submissive. Dominance=masculinity…submission=femininity.

But turn it around: Joe is Mary’s submissive. Suddenly, the audience will seek to find a rationale: WHY does he want to be submissive? What is lacking from his masculinity? Is he “pussy-whipped”? Is he a “mama’s boy” or Is he compensating for some childhood trauma? Is he looking for a release from the pressures of his otherwise dominant life? Furthermore, why would Mary want to be dominant? Is she a radical feminist? Does she hate men? The audience will struggle figure out what’s driving these two to make such a diversion. It’s viewed as “Role-Reversal” because the popular beliefs have been challenged. Gender bias is a huge obstacle.

It’s also interesting that BDSM submission seems easier for the public to accept than dominance. Dominance is viewed as the one “doing the doing”. This is the BDSM-mentality of doing things TO the submissive. That’s the imagery. Under this assumption, people will “excuse” a submissive, by attributing their acceptance as weakness in the presence of the power and persuasion of a determined dominant. But the motivations of a dominant are immediately suspect and have no excuse. They are evil, power hungry Bond-villains, out to take over the world. They are psychotic sadists, who have to hurt to be whole.

How does this change? How do we find BDSM relationships to be acceptable regardless of gender, and be brought out from behind closed doors? How do we get to a point where submission and dominance are equally acceptable?

I believe that a focus on D/s as the primary motivation for a couple, without the necessity of the imagery of S&M and B&D, will begin to bridge acceptance. Establishing an emotional bond between two partners in which one chooses to serve the other, will be more easily digested by the public. Most people have felt the desire to serve another and most people will accept that allowing someone to serve you (who WANTS to serve you) can be a natural response. Most people will accept that you don’t have to be psychotic to feel and desire consensual power dynamics.

As we all know, B&D and S&M are OPTIONAL ACTIVITIES in a relationship with D/s power dynamics. They are elected within the context of the power agreement. They will likely not be the only activities. Portray this in the media, even though it’s much harder to do, and we will see a change in perception and acceptance. Once the emotional bond is established in the minds of the viewers, they will accept it as the motivation for any physical bondage that follows. So long as the D/s is the primary motivation, the practices of B&D and S&M will be more readily acceptable and the public will not be dreaming up more destructive rationale for the actions. And if they are not present at all, more people will be exposed to, and understand, pure D/s dynamics…that can’t be a bad thing!

Hard Limits And D/s Dynamics

March 7, 2021 By Ms. Rika 2 Comments

lesbian collar bdsm play — via stock.adobe.com

From time to time, I make a comment that stirs up a bit of controversy. This week, the heresy was that I made the statement that I see no reasons for “Hard Limits” in established, founded, D/s relationships. I took a bit of flack regarding safety, communications, rights, etc.

So, before we get into my rationale, let’s quickly define a “Hard Limit”: A pre-negotiated activity, situation, or issue that participants considered to be prohibited.

It’s important to note, that my statement was made with respect to established and founded D/s Relationships. That is: Those with established, healthy underlying relationships (see my other articles regarding the “Layers” and what an “underlying relationship entails”) and relationships with developed, understood power dynamics.

I do see value in Hard Limits in other circumstances. For example, in a dynamic that’s built on a new relationship – or one that’s otherwise relatively early in its BDSM development – Situations where the dominant and submissive do not know each other well. In those cases, having the communication required to establish a set of hard limits is extremely valuable and likely even necessary for safety.

As my relationships are all firmly established and founded, I find the notion of limits to be restrictive for the dominant and indicative of a problem with the intent of the submissive. This is the fundamental assertion that raised the dander of many of the conversation’s participants.

My argument harkens back to the discussion of “Layers”; specifically, that different relationship attributes source their intent from the underlying relationship and others source from the power dynamic that is layered on top of that relationship. The requirements for a successful relationship (with or without a power dynamic) are things like: Caring, Respect, Honesty, Open Communications, Trust, Mutual Fulfillment of Needs, Companionship, etc.

It is my contention that, in D/s relationships that have established underlying relationships, the types of things that are “protected” within a “Limit” are naturally handled, without the need for a formalized structure. If you care about the physical and mental health of your partner, you’re not going to do things that harm them. You aren’t going to violate their trust. Therefore, the establishment of a formal “Hard Limit” is redundant. Worse than just being unnecessary, the restrictive nature of the INTENT of establishing a formal hard limit, indicates that the submissive does not trust the dominant to care for them – and feels that a contractual construct to explicitly prohibit them is necessary. I feel that this dilutes the commitment that is being made to that dominant.

The arguments that came back (and that maybe you’re thinking right now) related to the “Safety” of the submissive: That the dominant is obligated to avoid the limited activity which protects the submissive. They also fired off on “the rights of a submissive to control what is done to their bodies”.

To the first concern, I pointed out that there is nothing legal about a hard limit. A hard limit is only as valuable as the integrity of the dominant. People who don’t respect the physical and mental health of their partners will blow through a hard limit like a yellow light at an intersection…until they get caught. Believing that creating a hard limit “protects” you, is foolishly optimistic.

In this way, a “Hard Limit” is like a slavery contract – it’s communication for the purpose of understanding, but it can’t actually be enforced. There is no real binding mechanism. There is only the trust and honor of the partners. In the case of violations, where your partner isn’t honoring, or respecting your wishes, the only recourse you have (in both cases) is to end the dynamic. So “Safety” isn’t a real advantage.

With regard to the rights of the submissive: When you consider the underlying relationship, I feel the point is also moot. Certainly, you have the right to tell your partner what you like or don’t like. You also have the right to warn your partner about things that, in your mind, will end your dynamic. That’s basic relationship 101…and it’s reality with or without a power dynamic. The lack of a specified hard limit doesn’t change a person’s basic rights. I also warn that the existence of one doesn’t guarantee them either.

Imagine a couple who’ve been married for 25 years, who do not have an open marriage. One partner discovers that the other is having an affair. Do you think there’s a practical difference in these two statements?

“I told you that fidelity was a hard limit and so I’m leaving you”

vs.

“You violated my trust, I’m leaving you”

There is no difference. These are root-level requirements of healthy established, founded relationships. There is no need for the formality of the construct.

I was asked if I would enter into a relationship with a sub who presented me with hard limits. For me, it would depend on his intent when presenting that limit. If he said, “I just want you to know that I’ve had a trigger on ‘XYZ’ my entire life and I want to make sure I never have to deal with it…please don’t put me in that situation” – then I would not hesitate taking this man on as a submissive (and I would respect his concerns).

But, if he said something along the lines of, “I will submit to you, but only if you don’t do “XYZ” – which is off limits to you.” – Then, my radar would go up and I would be far more cautious before engaging with him. I would want to probe a little further to attempt to determine his true attitude. Is his intent to limit me as a dominant, or does he just not know a better way of communicating this?

Lastly, if he said, “You can do ABC, DEF, GHI, but not XYZ – or I will be gone”, then I would likely not engage at all. It’s all about intent – and a submissive who thinks it’s his role to limit me as a dominant, isn’t a submissive for me.

When someone enters a power dynamic as a submissive, purporting to dedicate themselves to the preferences and pleasure of their partner and to serve them as their submissive, and then spells out the ways in which THEY are going to RESTRICT their partner – it dilutes the meaning of the power agreement (to me). That doesn’t mean the submissive partner can’t communicate their preferences and even specify their hot-stops – in fact, I want to know that and I seek that out…but the attitude of RESTRICTION changes the intent of the agreement – to me – and I would not accept that Hard Limit.

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”.

How Do Submissives “Enjoy” Physical and/or Emotional Discomfort?

February 27, 2021 By Ms. Rika 2 Comments

hot lesbian rope bunnies — via stock.adobe.com

This entry, I’d like to share some thoughts from a FetLife conversation that revolved around the notion that submissives “Enjoy” punishment, pain, and denial…and the question of how they deal with doing something they don’t really enjoy.

I brought up the point that I’ve shared here in previous columns in Kinkweekly: That feeling compelled to do (or endure) something you normally wouldn’t, forces the submissive to rationalize why they are allowing it (or going along with it) …and that the popular rationalization is that they are out of control and under the command of their partner – that they are “Forced” to accept the discomfort. This serves to build the façade of power that allows both partners to obfuscate the reality of consent and enjoy their dynamic despite the continued existence of free-will.

I’ve used this point to argue why punishment isn’t actually the most effective tool in changing behavior in submissives, since, although the submissive might dislike the punishment itself, they crave the concept that their partner has the authority to punish them. The more distasteful the punishment, the greater the perceived authority of the dominant, the more ‘enjoyment’ for the submissive. Obviously counter-productive to actual behavior modification.

During the conversation, one friend, who goes by the auspicious username of 000-298-237 (his friends call him ‘7’…jk ) posted an interesting point of view regarding the use of the word ‘enjoyment’. With his permission, I’m quoting him here:

“Enjoy” has become a difficult word over the years. There is a great deal that goes on, no matter the relationship or the context, that isn’t “enjoyable”. I still do things.

I have pursued the craft of blacksmithing for more than two decades now. There is a saying “Blacksmithing without burns is like expecting to swim without getting wet.” I’ve had my share of burns, thankfully, through care and luck I’ve not had any that required serious medical attention. I did reach the place where I let the burn sizzle so as to not spoil the weld. (It’s not masochism in such circumstances, trust me.) I haven’t stopped my smithing due to burns. I do not enjoy burns. Particularly the ones on the inside of the hand where there is no nursing them if the work needs to continue. I still don’t stop smithing.

About the same time, I came to hear “swimming without getting wet” I was in about my third year of chastity with a full belt. (A Goenthals for the curious.) That’s when “enjoy” started becoming an awkward word. “You must really enjoy chastity to be in that belt so much.” Most were surprised to hear me say “no”. And later, “‘Enjoy’ has nothing to do with it, but it’s not a hair shirt, either.” The side that gets little press about such things is the work of it. It wasn’t discomfort or denial. Even if it had become easy routine, the level of maintenance of belt and body requires dedication and effort. I’d explain this.

“But if you don’t enjoy it, why do you do it?” My reasons were several, and several were my own. It was not completely the whim and insistence of a Superior, and even when it was it wasn’t about what either of us “enjoyed”. Most of my specific reasons I don’t care to share here. Really, the specific reasons aren’t germaine.

“I appreciate it.”

Changing one word makes a world of difference, at least for me. My world has a lot of joy in it. My relationships have had a great deal of joy too. Sometimes the greatest joy has come when there was the least to be enjoyed. Maybe it’s age, but even younger I was little moved to do something simply because I might enjoy it. That’s for decisions like “I think I’ll pick up a candy bar when I stop for gas and milk. I’ll enjoy the ride home a little more with a candy bar to munch on.”

There’s much I don’t enjoy in service or submission. There’s much I don’t enjoy about being a father, or when I was a husband, or sub, or slave, or employee, or employer. I’ve appreciated and more than appreciated all of that. My love and appreciation has not diminished when dealing with dirty diapers or the considerably greater quantities of manure a horse can produce. I can’t say I’ve enjoyed the blood or vomitus or any of the several other less than pleasant substances and experiences of tending to people who are ill. I still do it. And I appreciate them, and the relationship, and the circumstances and environment and more. I’m profoundly grateful for them.

Joy does not mean enjoy.

I love this last phrase, “Joy does not mean enjoy”. In a nutshell, this is it. We can like the fact that we do things, even though we don’t like the things we’re doing. The price we pay for joy often comes at the cost of ‘enjoy’. Submissives derive pleasure from unpleasurable things…it’s not a paradox…it’s a fact of natural human life. We all have experienced this.

At the end of the day, power dynamics are just extensions of our other natural desires. There isn’t anything unique or puzzling about sacrifice for devotion and caring. We can find pleasure in enduring the unpleasurable. “Love hurts”.

I found this an interesting perspective and wanted to share it with you. I Hope you find it thought-provoking as well!

Power Exchange And Longevity

February 14, 2021 By Ms. Rika 2 Comments

power exchange couple with ribbon — via stock.adobe.com

Over the past 15 years, I’ve worked with a number of couples establishing power dynamics within their relationships. I’ve seen a lot of challenges and hurdles overcome: Preconceptions, fears, assumptions, and wayward imagery. I’m happy to say that, most of the time, we have been successful at creating meaningful and long-lasting dynamics. Of course, not all the time.

The relationships that I have seen have varied in intensity; everything from spouses, partners, lovers, friends, to even professional/client relationships. I’ve seen all sorts of power dynamics layered onto those relationships; from highly intense TPE (Total Power Exchange) to playtime-only topping and bottoming.

When you start to see a cross-section of relationships, you start to notice trends. Particularly, trends in why people enter relationships, characteristics that result in good dynamics, and common reasons why people have difficulty getting a dynamic to last. People enter into power dynamics with some fairly lofty expectations. They can easily become disillusioned and disenfranchised, if those expectations are not tempered.

One of the popular beliefs among those who are into power dynamics, is that power dynamics make a relationship “stronger”. In particular, that people with power dynamics will have better communication, be closer, and have increased trust.

It’s a natural tendency to give the things that you do, particularly those that that are out of the norm, more importance than they deserve – and I’m afraid, this is one of those situations. Power dynamics do require communication, trust, and closeness – true – but they don’t, in and of themselves, create them.

Relationships have base needs. In past articles, I’ve listed a bunch of those, including: Trust, Honesty, Caring, Mutual Fulfillment of Need, Openness, Communications, Respect, etc. None of these are uniquely tied to power dynamics: Plenty of folks enjoy high levels of all of these without power dynamics — and many people who have strong power dynamics do not have high levels of these characteristics.

It’s safe to say that ANYTHING a couple can do, that relies on these base characteristics, will exercise them for the relationship. These are opportunities to prove that the characteristics are strong. However, they are also opportunities that highlight weaknesses. Relying on the relationship-level characteristics tests their voracity.

I can think of a few things that tests trust, honesty, caring, openness, communications, etc.: Rock Climbing, Scuba Diving, and Martial Arts comes immediately to mind when I think of sports; Swinging, Polyamory, Sex in open places, and power dynamics comes to mind, if I think about sex.

In my first book, way back in 2008 (omg!), one of the chapters was called, “We are no different”. In it, I made the argument that being in a power dynamic does NOT make your relationship any stronger, more vital, or more important than any other activities that promote common interests, common goals, and a strong sex life. Power dynamics are but just one of many things a couple can engage in together, which will have the same effect.

When I was growing up, I believed that a strong sex life is vital to longevity of a relationship. I still feel this is generally true. However, I also saw relationships that failed because the sex life was the primary draw that brought people together – which worked well in the beginning. However, as both parties matured at different rates, and the sex life became less “new”, if they hadn’t developed the basic requirements of relationships, they had nothing left to hold them together and the relationship disintegrated.

What I’ve come to recognize is that, unlike popular opinion, having a power dynamic does not (in and of itself) strengthen a relationship, but it CAN help to grow the characteristics that do. It’s the aspects of the underlying relationship that get exercised because of a power dynamic that really hold the relationship together. It’s the fact that power dynamics give you the opportunity to explore trust and communication, respect and consent, caring, openness, and mutual fulfillment.

I’ve also realized the corollary: That relationships don’t dissolve because of failure in the power dynamic. People don’t separate because the sex life goes bad -they may use that as a reason (not being physically fulfilled) – but it’s really just an indicator of other, deeper needs that are not being met within the relationship. A failure in the power dynamic could LEAD TO the feeling that other, relationship-level requirements, are not being met. If the communication in a relationship is good, then a void in physical desire will be discussed, mutually understood, and disposed (through agreement, resignation, or compromise).

Where relationships fail is when failures in the physical are indicators that the partner doesn’t care, isn’t interested in mutual fulfillment, and isn’t showing respect. THOSE violations impact the base of the relationship, and will put the relationship at risk. The prime example of this is when one partner sneaks off and goes outside of the relationship to get physical fulfillment behind the other’s back. They put the relationship at risk by violating the basic requirements of Trust and Respect. You’ve heard the excuse, “It was just sex, it meant nothing” … which may well be true – but it’s not the sex that does the damage, it’s the violation of the fundamental requirements of relationships: trust, caring, respect, etc. that do the harm. Someone who sneaks off to a professional dominatrix, or who creates a relationship online with a dominant, without their partner’s awareness and consent, is putting their relationship at risk – not because of a physical deficiency, but because of the relationship-impacting choices they make in dealing with the physical deficiency.

Power dynamics are not the answer, they’re the test. Longevity in a relationship relies on relationship level characteristics. Trust, caring, honesty, respect, mutual satisfaction of need, open communications, etc. – these are the things that provide longevity. Power dynamics, as well as many other activities and dynamics in which couples may engage, put those characteristics into use. When a part of your relationship is exercised, it either demonstrates its strength or exposes its weaknesses. You can’t build a meaningful relationship on a weak foundation. Adding a power dynamic to a relationship that has weak base in trust, communication, and caring isn’t going to fix the relationship – it’s going to highlight the deficiencies. Bad power dynamics aren’t going to destroy a relationship, either – unless the cause of the issues originates due to failure in the underlying relationship requirements, or are interpreted as such.

Keep the layers in mind. I know most people live relationships as a consolidated whole…they have a single “Power Relationship”, but it’s often helpful to view it as a “Relationship” that has a “Power dynamic” layered on. Then you can put you focus on the right spot – and not conflate the characteristics of power dynamics with those of relationships. Then you have focus to strengthen those characteristics that will give the overall relationship longer life.

The Barbie Analogy From Submissives

February 7, 2021 By Ms. Rika 3 Comments

big little cute woman with pigtails and teddy bear — via stock.adobe.com

This morning, I was participating in a discussion regarding the observations by some dominant women that submissives do not show attraction well. The reasons for why this was the case isn’t as important as that the dominants in the discussion were lamenting about how they enjoy being the target of attraction and how they feel limited to the submissive’s submissive acts as the means for recognizing that attraction. They felt pressure to accept acts of submission as the only indicator of desire. There were many comments that started with, “I’m not insecure, but…”. In general, when you start a sentence with “I’m not xxxx, but…” – it means you know you ARE xxxx, and you don’t want to be. I know some of these people well …These really aren’t insecure people, but they are PEOPLE – and people have insecurities.

One dominant said, “This is a real struggle for me. I understand that I am the Dom and it is down to me to make all the moves and be the lead. Which is obviously something I enjoy. But then the human in me wants to feel wanted. Needed. I need to feel attractive for some reason other than my whip.”

There’s a poison at work here; a recurring theme that drags us down. There is an insidious belief that dominance can only be defined by a consistent standard to which we all aspire: Dominants are “All powerful” … “Impenetrable” … “Demanding” … “Untouchable”.

I began to think of my Barbie doll.

We are fed this imagery of dominance from the very beginning. It is either something that we read, or something that our partners told us: “Dominants are like Gods”. They are “Worthy of worship”. “They have an impenetrable shield of confidence”. Bullshit. Newsflash: We’re not Gods; we’re mere mortals.

This imagery is designed by submissives to serve the submissive mind. They want to feel subjugated to a more powerful authority. They want to feel irresistibly compelled to submit. They want to be helpless – and to have that helplessness leveraged by an uncaring, unyielding, task master. The imagery is very clear – and it spells out a standard you must support to be “A Dominant”.

I repeat, it’s poison. The analogy to Barbie is strong: Barbie represents an image of female perfection that can never be achieved – and yet, was held as a standard to which all women should strive. The pressure to achieve the unachievable is established in the very core of the image. Worse, it’s an image that mothers passed to their daughters. It’s a destructive process.

For dominants, we’re facing a similar dilemma; male and female dominants alike; to appear and act like an archetype…to present the complement personality to what the submissive wants to see themselves as. The submissive is defining what dominance looks like – in order to provide a framework that supports the imagery of themselves that they prefer. The result is a lot of pressure on the dominant – the one supposedly being served. Worse, like mothers passing Barbie to their daughters, dominants often pass that requirement to new dominants just entering dynamics. They transmit that which they themselves were unable to attain; perhaps in an effort to avoid admitting their own inability to do so.

I won’t buy in to that imagery. I choose to define dominance by my own terms. I’m a dominant…which means, I’m a person who has allowed people who want to serve me, to serve me. I didn’t force them to serve me, I don’t expect them to fall to their knees because I’m some irresistible deity…I’m just a person; with needs, desires, and yes, insecurities.

This notion that a dominant must lead and make all the decisions: I don’t agree. Rather, the dominant is the partner whose preferences set the direction of a power dynamic – whatever those preferences are. We don’t have to make all the decisions – UNLESS it serves us to do so. We don’t have to lead, unless we want to. Our sub’s job is to serve us in whatever way we want to be served. Believing that it all falls on you is a tremendous amount of pressure to put on yourself – unless you enjoy being in that situation all the time. Most of us enjoy leading most of the time – but there are times when we just want to follow, or be held, or be vulnerable…and that doesn’t make us any less dominant.

What makes us dominant is that, when we feel like following – and having someone else “make the moves”, or be hugged, or understood…they do it dutifully, with our best interests in their minds, motivated by their desire to do things FOR us, as our submissives.

My advice: Don’t get hung up with that “dominant=perfection” stigma…it’s analogous to the pressure of the perfect figure, the perfect skin, the perfect hair…Remember: Barbie is a killer. Don’t let those pressures force you to be someone you’re not. Be yourself, teach your submissive who you are and what you prefer, and let your submissive serve the unique YOU that you are.

The Company You Keep Matters-Even In The BDSM Scene

January 30, 2021 By Ms. Rika 2 Comments

sexy feet in fishnets — via stock.adobe.com

“You are not responsible for what your friends do, but you will be judged by the company you keep. The key is to keep company only with people who uplift you, whose presence calls forth your best.” – Colin Powell (and several others)

“Tell me what company you keep and I’ll tell you what you are.” – Miguel De Cervantes Saavedra

“Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounding yourself with assholes.” – William Gibson

Aesop is credited as the first to have said it. Others have repeated it in various flavors. “You are the company you keep”. Now, let’s consider these other interesting quotes from actual dominants (who will go unnamed):

“My subs are the lowest of the low…”

“He’s not worthy to lick the soles of my boots…”

“He’s a pig, wallowing in my waste…”

“She’s an idiot, a moron, an imbecile. She can’t do anything right […] Look at the way she bows before me…”

I get it…it’s a fantasy. It’s play. It’s a “scene”. And, it has a place there. I certainly understand why submissives might be excited by having to accept such insults and even might want the humiliation of being treated like the grime beneath a boot, but I find it harder to understand they, and some dominants, choose to extend that “scene” to real life. Over the years, I’ve met a number of dominants who openly speak lowly of their submissives, not just insulting them to their faces, but complaining about them when they’re not even around. Not just during playtime…but as part of their everyday existence.

Last week, I had my first consultation with a new dominant; a middle-aged man, who has been in the scene for several years. He has a small stable of three female submissives. He had read “Uniquely Dominant” and reached out to ask me a few questions about my methodology.

He started to describe his submissives. There was pride in his voice…but there wasn’t a single thing complimentary, or even positive, in his description. He spoke of them in terms of their faults and weaknesses. He discussed them as if they were broken, faulted, and inept.

I could tell that, in his mind, he was trying to make himself appear “above it all” in my eyes. He was trying to impress me; by showing me how critical he was of his “property”. I tried to look through the façade, but it was actually very difficult.

I asked him what he does to correct them; since he was constantly disappointed with them. He detailed the punishments he doles out. I asked him if those punishments helped, and he responded by telling me how afraid of the punishments they were…but that they were “so stupid” it doesn’t seem to change anything.

… And the definition of insanity is?

I questioned if he thought his methods were effective…or if there might be a better way. That question hadn’t ever crossed his mind. After a few minutes of probing that thought, it became quite clear he had no interest in improving his situation. He wanted to complain about them, and flat-out wasn’t looking to actually correct anything.

In my eyes, this man lost a great deal of respect. It’s just fantasy, right? Well, this was this guy’s life…and he was surrounding himself with people who he wanted to feel were the lowest of the low, incompetent, and inept. Far from being impressive, the message his attitude conveyed to me was that he was highly insecure regarding his own strengths and intelligence, and likely even doubted his own abilities as a dominant in the first place!

Then, he made the mistake of asking me how I “keep my submissives in line”…which opened up the door for me to share a bit of my approach – since, I don’t keep my subs in line. I explained that my subs keep themselves in line. They are intelligent, capable, competent people – and I go out of my way to make sure they not only know I feel that way, but that I RELY on it: I fully expect them to put those wonderful traits into service for me. I want them to accomplish their objective: To be the very best submissive they can be – as measured by my assessment of their efforts and how well their efforts please me. How can they please me if they’re unable to service competently?

What does it say about a dominant who openly denigrates their submissives in front of others? What does it say about a person who CHOOSES to keep people who do not satisfy them around? Aren’t we the company we keep? With whom do we choose to surround ourselves?

I’m a lifestyle dominant. I spend an awful lot of time with my submissives. They are around me all the time. I have an extremely high level of power and control over the select people who dedicate themselves to me – and I have a choice as to who I allow to be in my presence: Why in the world would I choose to have low, sub-human, stupid, or inept people serving me?

I choose my submissives based on how well they can learn to serve me. I work with them to improve their skills, increase their understanding of my preferences and expectations, and determine how and when to convert that into service. I ENABLE them to serve me better. We share the common objective of them being the best submissive for me that they can be. The level of dedication that this requires from a submissive is not something that an imbecile is going to grasp.

In fantasy…in scene…in playtime: They can be beneath the dirt on my sole. But to be my submissive…to serve me…to submit to me: They need to bring their “A-Game” to the table, put their abilities on display, and serve to the best of their ability!

Why I Find Feminization Fantasies Insulting

January 10, 2021 By Ms. Rika 5 Comments

A very popular fantasy among submissive men, is the desire to be “forced” to be dressed like a woman. Whenever I’ve heard this fantasy, I’ve challenged it: Why do men feel that dressing like a woman is humiliating or degrading? They say they worship women, but then feel that being more like one is an embarrassment.

I’ve heard lots of reasoning based on what it’s like to grow up being a man – and the stresses of retaining and demonstrating masculinity. That only a very powerful force would make a man go against that masculinity – and therefore, is exciting to the man if he is made to be that way.

My attitude has always been, live and let live – if someone gets turned on by it, then fine…let them. It’s just not for me – and my submissives will not be engaging in it. Your kink is not my kink…and move on. I still do feel that way, but I’ve always disliked the fantasy and found it denigrating…but I never really could put my finger on exactly why it bothered me.

Then, this morning, I was reading a post on FetLife from a friend of mine, @Miss_Malloree, who said:

Am I the only one who’s noticed that there are very few men who fantasize about being the woman who breaks through the glass ceiling at a major corporation, or who owns and successfully manages a professional sports franchise, or who is elected president? As others have commented, they all seem to envision themselves as being at the bottom of the food chain, rather than the top.

And I said, “Holy Crap!”

This is it…this is at the crux of why the fantasy is so distasteful to me. Maybe you’ve always seen this, but for me, this was a revelation.

The fantasy most submissive men have regarding cross dressing, is to become the “Sissy”, the “Slut”, the “Maid”, the “Prostitute”, the “Geisha”. They’re not just pretending to be any woman, they’re pretending to be a particular type of woman – one who is not high-achieving, or well thought of in society. They are highlighting the (as Malloree says) bottom of the food chain.

What that says to me is that, this is what these men really feel women are. Oh, I’m sure they’ll argue that they recognize that women are successful and capable, smart and intelligent – but in reality – when push comes to shove – women are maids, sluts, and sex-objects. Malloree suggested female corporate executives and business people, but the fantasy falls short of even middle tier jobs: Teachers, Scientists, Fire or Police professionals. No…they are going to be dressed up, overly made up, loose…forced to “suck cock”. That’s the imagery they have – and they want – consciously, or sub-consciously.

Worse still, the presumption is that a dominant woman, given all the power that she has, will want to convert him into that type of woman…as a means to embarrass him!

I can hear the argument: That the lower level role is part of the humiliation. Sorry – I’m not buying it. Why the focus on gender? Why not just be turned into a lower-class man? Forced to be a gigolo, or a bum? No…this is LINKED to a gender swap. This is about weakness and vulnerability as a function of being a woman. Being a man in this position is not low enough. They are implying that a lower-class woman is lower on the food chain than a lower-class man. The lowest of the low.

I have come to realize that the fantasy highlights what these men really feel about women. I’ve always known the fantasy was insulting – but never quite understood why I felt that way. Now, I have clarity. I wanted to share this with you and would love your thoughts!

Ms. Rika

Footer