Article - Guest Author

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

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!  

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. 

 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