| Finding focus | Understanding motivation | Religion & faith | Sexuality | Families | Front page |
This page is about erotic power exchange (EPE) which is often equated with BDSM. The objectives of EPE are relationship centred and focus on the commitment of the parties together. In contrast much BDSM play focusses on sensation. This difference of focus is important.
One woman wrote:
"I'm looking for information that might cover the troubles that crop up in a relationship, particularly in a marriage, when one partner reveals his/her tendencies towards BDSM. I'm the vanilla spouse of a man who believes he's dominant. We've been married eight years, and until about two years ago, I had no clue he had such interests. We've done some experimentation since he "came out," but I don't find any of it appealing at all. It's possible that the circumstances of some of our encounters turned me off to it all, but trust me, the turn off is permanent."
Many people feel that they are simply not interested in BDSM. Such play tends to challenge conventional beliefs about behaviour and is often not politically correct. Her view is thus very common but perhaps sadly mistaken. I will try to explain why.
BDSM play differs from abuse (which can look very much the same) in that BDSM play requires consent. This consent may be given at a different time, in different circumstances however it is continuing consent which distinguishes BDSM from abuse. The consent must be adequately informed to be meaningful. This requires that the person consenting and surrendering control (the submissive) understands the implications of that surrender, and has placed limits or boundaries on the extent of control surrendered. It also requires the person taking control (the dominant) to accept and respect the specifics of that consent.
It is usual for the couple to agree on a fall-back or safety net often in the form of a 'safeword'. The safeword is a code word unlikely to be uttered in the normal course of play by which the submissive can indicate that consent has been exceeded or is no longer continuing. Use of the safeword would normally end any activities, and its availability permits the submissive to say whatever seems appropriate (including strong language and demands to stop) as part of the play, and without being taken literally.
The range of activities that may be included in EPE or BDSM play is very broad. More severe activities tend to catch our attention but are not appropriate for the tastes of many people. A simple (but effective) blindfold is sufficient for much activity. Light play may also employ mild restraint (hands tied gently but securely out of the way), pain (gentle spanking) or humiliation (requirement to do embarassing things in private).
It is not the severity of the activity which makes EPE effective — it is the trust which is involved. EPE need not involve heavy BDSM and need not include pain at all, but it does require enough perceived threat to demand trust. For many that may be very light play indeed.
The activities of BDSM play often include behaviour associated with abusive relationships ('though not necessarily so) and to the uninformed there might be no apparent difference. Informed consent (which may be withdrawn at any time) is the critical difference. So why might a person give such consent, or seek it? That varies widely.
Some people come to BDSM seeking only sensations they enjoy. The physiological thrills are natural neurochemical experiences (the endorphin and seratonin 'highs') which some claim to regularly experience, 'though some others report no such highs. The levels of trust required in such play activities is minimal, so consent arrangements can be made on-the-spot and the play completed as a one-night-stand. These players are largely into pleasing themselves and do not explore EPE.
Some players seek recognition and acceptance — a relationship which deliberately flouts convention can be a statement of relatively unqualified or unconditional acceptance. This is probably true of almost all those who engage in public play (activities with more than just the players present) and also a good deal of private play. 'Relatively' because the consent offered imposes limits which the dominant is to respect and so the relationship is not truly unconditional.
A submissive engaging in such play may be seeking sex, other physiological thrills, or social satisfactions (a sense of acceptance), but in each case the motivation is meeting the player's own needs. A submissive seeking to fulfil a particular fantasy also is likely to be quite specific in limiting the nature of the play and thus the extent of trust (and power exchange) which is involved.
A need for recognition and acceptance may be a disguise for a sense of inadequacy or insecurity. It is not suggested that all players at BDSM are involved from a psychologically strong starting point. Those who need to deny, compensate or project their personal relationship difficulties are not likely to be satisfying partners for a long term relationship — either BDSM or vanilla. There are others however who come with a reasonably healthy self-image.
A dominant engaging in social play may also be seeking a superficial excitement, social acceptance or may be pandering to egotism (I am powerful and dominant, possibly compensating a sense of insecurity) — in either case again the motivation is entirely internal. These needs also can be met without requiring much trust from a submissive.
While it is important that we do things for our own reasons (we don't depend on others to justify our own choices) it is equally important to see that there is (or should be) very little trust exercised in a casual relationship. Players should not be seeking a profound experience of trust or intimate dependence with casual acquaintances or strangers, that is not safe.
Eric Berne (the 'father' of transaction analysis) showed how important it is that we feel OK about ourselves and each other. Proving to myself that I am OK is pretty important; EPE is about making that real.
EPE is *not* about the exercise of power by one person over another — it is rather the surrender of control by one person to another. While this might look much the same, the result is a world apart. If one person orders another to act in a particular way some motives are required. If the principal motive is fear the relationship is abusive; if the principal motive is sensation the relationship may be BDSM play discussed above; if the principal motive is self-exposure the relationship may be EPE. In each case the actions involved might be exactly the same.
Those who seek EPE find their greatest benefits in what it enables within themselves. This is rather more subtle than BDSM play. Power exchange is to intimacy what Zen is to meditation. You can meditate without having any concept of spirituality — the understanding of the Zen master is optional but it usually helps if we understand a little.
Those who see EPE as an exercise in intimacy speak in inspired or spiritual terms because this is very much an experience of discovery of ourselves, an acceptance of myself by me, an understanding about who I am. Those who simply revel in the experience without concern for why it works benefit no less, but the understanding often helps.
EPE works regardless of what the dominant does (provided he is not too inept) because the experience is of surrender and is not about technique or the exercise of power. The potency of EPE lies entirely in the submissive's belief in and acceptance of what the dominant might do. Whether or not the dominant could do these things doesn't matter — what matters is what the submissive believes or chooses to believe (in spite of rational considerations).
Acceptance in the face of such belief is the demonstration and exercise of trust. This does not depend on the dominant's techniques but only on the submissive's perception of those activities. To the extent that this is theatre, requiring suspension of disbelief, it may depend on thespian skills. Perception may be distorted by slight of hand or entirely fabricated under hypnosis, but the exercise of trust and acceptance required are not reduced on that account.
Such trust enables intimate explorations of a most profound nature which are deeply revealing to both players and which represent a quality of mutual openness never found in polite social relationships. This quality of intimacy is explored in my article Intimacy and is not repeated here.
A long term relationship may also be limited to low levels of power exchange if that is what the parties seek (some vanilla relationships last well and appear to please both parties). Sheer sensation satiates however, as surely as a diet consisting only of chocolate. The delights of EPE lie in the context as much as in the actions; sustained pleasures must be sought in more complex relationships than a surcharge of hormones on a one-night-stand.
The primary purpose of intimate relationships is to experience personal and spiritual growth, to enrich our life experience and to bring us joy.
Effective EPE requires intimate knowledge of and exposure to your partner. The submissive must know who is trustworthy when real trust is required, and the dominant needs to know how to probe the mind and perceptions of the submissive in order to stretch the experience. While modest levels of pain are a common basis of play, pain is not necessary — anything which tests trust can be just as effective.
Many individuals suffer abusive experiences as children, the pains of which become apparent and are sometimes disruptive in BDSM activities. The vast variety of BDSM activities reflects the diversity of preference in this regard and some people are able simply to avoid those activities which cause troublesome flashbacks.
A more beneficial approach is the systematic exposure and exploration of these feelings until they are able to be integrated into the survivor's world view. This is not to negate them in any way, the hurtful memories remains, but they lose emotional potency and are able to be seen as a part of our colourful past and the route by which I arrive at myself today — here and now. Those events are behind us and our experience of the present should not be determined by them.
This is what it means to be a survivor as distinct from a victim who remains trapped by their past. To cling to those hurtful past events, and to blame our present fears on the absent perpetrators of those events, is to excuse ourselves from responsibility for our present experience. Avoiding this responsibility for ourselves is tempting, but it is not living.
Acceptance of myself means all of me — my own shitty past; my own fears and weaknesses, greed and ambition; my own wrinkles and arthritis, blotches and blubber; my own lies and pretence. Accepting ourselves as we are is always hard work. We want to believe the dreams, that my role is Cinderella and a prince will come — but happily ever after comes only to those who understand that they must first accept who they are, limited and human — warts and all.
Some folks mistakenly seek an ego-trip in controlling another person, however the experiences available to us from letting go (and from participating while the one we love is enabled to let go) are of vastly greater intensity. Symbolised by (but certainly not limited to) the orgasm, which we have only when we let go, the experiences of EPE may include the cathartic release of the anger and hurt of our past, our self absorption and narcissism, our fear and insecurity, our dependence on others or on material possessions, and most commonly a profound expression of feelings about myself and my lover.
It is not just a coincidence that, from time immemorial, mystics and introspectives have found benefit in flagellation (a popular component of BDSM). Physical stimulus can be an integral (perhaps necessary) part of our process of resolving what is important in our lives. The heart of this is not taking control — but of relinquishing control.
In order to surrender control we require a person to surrender to. The EPE trip is the submissive's and the role of the dominant is to facilitate the experience and to watch in awe when that is successful. In this theatre the dominant is a supporting part.
It is humiliating to feel weak, insecure and dependent on others and we use a great variety of defence mechanisms to protect ourselves from this and to hide it when it occurs. We do this so effectively that often we deceive ourselves and remain entirely unaware of it. EPE is deliberately allowing those defence mechanisms to be challenged and enables us to see ourselves more truly than we would otherwise do.
Is this losing a sense of my self? I think the opposite. It can be learning a sense of our self which is more true than the structure of shadowy fears and self-deception most people suffer from.
The woman quoted at the beginning of this page does not desire such intimacy with her husband. BDSM is not her problem; there is always some variation of play which could avoid any specific difficulty she may experience.
Her problem — and that of most people who react in fear to BDSM — is more fundamental. Their fear is of surrendering themselves, of losing control, of being abandoned and uncivilised, of dropping the defence of social graces and seeing inside. The woman could benefit profoundly from EPE, but it does require the courage to own and confront our fears.
She is mistaken because she does not understand, nor wish to expose, the basis of her fear. Her emphatic rejection — "I don't find any of it appealing at all ... trust me, the turn off is permanent" — reflects a rigidity and dogmatism which bodes ill for any growth or personal development in her intimate relationships.
She has a real problem — using denial to avoid confronting something we fear does not help manage our fear. The deliberate manipulation of trust in EPE could benefit her greatly; it is not necessary to want all sorts of BDSM to benefit from it. Many people play with blindfolds or tie a partner to the bed, such symbols of trust are fundamental EPE and may be deeply meaningful to both players. Her disposition may also mask a dependent personality disorder (fear of having to negotiate and establish her own boundaries - preferring her 'inherited' stereotypes which may conflict with her husband's).
Her letter appears to establish her boundaries very firmly but in my opinion it does not — it simply excludes a vast variety of intimate behaviour branding it unacceptable to her. In my opinion establishing a boundary requires identifying behaviour lying close to _both_ sides so that both acceptable and unacceptable are identified in a distinction which is meaningfully integrated with the rest of the personality.
It is likely that her denial will destroy her marriage and she will blame her husband for that. Not my idea of a healthy position.
Learning not to cling to our own self-deceit and misconceptions is not for everyone, but there is no doubt that those who do feel much better for it. Combining this into erotic experiences makes for very potent therapy indeed.
Peter
Original: February ‘03
This page is part of “Living in the Light”
found at: http://www.tassie.net.au/~phoban/
| Finding focus | Understanding motivation | Religion & faith | Sexuality | Families | Front page |