29 July 2011

Rules, labels and no "true way"

So much of what we may read, suggests that there should be a "right" or "wrong" way of doing things.

It seems that certain (and very often self-labelled) "authorities" (and I use that word loosely because in reality some can only be an authority on the way things are for them ~ for their relationships and their interests and not everyone elses!) anyway ~ "some authorities" on BDSM so often suggest their way is the right way, that there is one true way.

There isn't.

They try to suggest that everyone should follow what they put forward.  Their way, may to them be the true way; the only way.  What it is in fact is the right way for them. It doesn't by any means make it right for anyone else or anyone else's dynamic or relationship.

Just as what works for me, may not work for another.  I get that. I just wish others would.  It seems that so many are intent in placing themselves into boxes, placing themselves under "labels" that in reality don't fit, but maybe the closest thing.  It is impossible to place everyone into boxes, or to place everyone under the same label.

There really are no hard and fast rules when it comes to Female Led Relationships or Femdom, or any type of relationship for that matter.  There is no "template" as to what is right, what is wrong and how that relationship should be established or developed.  There isn't anything which says that a relationship must have X, Y or Z.  The important thing is the people within it communicate openly and honestly.  Such communication is an important part of any type of relationship, not just D/s, not just FLRs, but every type of relationship where people are involved. Where a power exchange takes place, where one person has control over another, that communication is entirely necessary. In fact, it really is vital.

Some subscribe to the thinking that D/s relationships as a whole (whether they be male led, female led, Femdom, D/s, M/s etc) are deeper, involve more attachment, require more trust, communication, openness than “traditional” relationships. I don’t subscribe to that in the slightest as I think that all relationships regardless of their dynamic, regardless of whether they include “vanilla” or not require those things. They need trust and honesty, they need communication, they involve intimacy and attachment and emotions, but just because they may be different than what society deems as "traditional" doesn't make them "better" or more anything over another dynamic.

One isn’t better than the other.

One isn't more involved than another.

One isn't more intimate than the other. One isn't more anything over another.

They are just as they are.

Yes of course there are differences within each relationship, differences within a Female led relationship, just as there are differences to a relationship which is Male led and these differences distinguish them from what society deems "traditional", but even though there are differences to the traditional, there are also differences within these types of dynamics according to the people within them.

One will never be the same as the other.  There will always be differences according to the wants and needs of those within it, whether it is physical, emotional, mental or sexual needs.  What works within one, won't work necessarily in another.  So there isn't a true way. There isn't "one" way.  There is just the way that we want to follow and what is right for us.  Doesn't mean it will always work, doesn't mean that it will be perfect ~ after all, nothing ever is.

Each relationship is really unique to the people within them and as such, what works for them is right for them. It certainly doesn't mean it would work for others or with others.  And this is why reading some of the writings from those who claim to be "authorities" really should be taken with an open mind, but very much a pinch of salt.

We can learn things, we can find an understanding of things, and there is a lot for us to learn, we can of course learn a lot from others and what does or doesn't work for them, but just because something is right for someone else, just because it may have worked for them, doesn't mean it will be for us or for others and it certainly doesn't make necessarily them an "authority" over anyone else or particular subjects.

I came across some writings recently, which was looking at FLRs and Femdom and the supposed "guidelines" that must be present for these type of relationships to work.  I find it frustrating that people suggest what must be present within anyone’s relationship for it to work.

If I don’t want something to happen within my relationship, it won’t. If I do, then it will. It is what works for me, what I want to do, certainly not what someone tells me to do. After all, I am in control of myself and my relationship, not some claimed “authority”.

Anyway, it suggested that one of the guidelines is the control and denial of the male orgasm and that it should “always be present” within an FLR.

Should it? Does it have to be?

No. Of course not.

Not if it isn’t what is wanted or required. It does play a big part of many relationships, but it doesn't have to be in every relationship.  It does or would in mine, for me chastity, control and denial is a very important part of such a relationship, but that's a personal choice for me.  Because it works for me. Not because I am told it should be a part of such a dynamic.

There are many who do not want it, many women who do not want that control.  There was a comment on a blog I read only yesterday where a male sub was talking about trying to persuade his very "vanilla wife" to take control and how she was "freaked" out by such suggestions and he asked why?


Well perhaps it has something to do with the fact that she isn't dominant, she doesn't want to dominate you and she has no desire to do so. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that she isn’t interested in wanting to control your cock and your orgasm?

Some people don’t “get it”, for some people TTWD isn’t the things they want to do. And that’s not wrong; it is just how it is. There are many in this situation trying to "persuade" but there is only so much you can do.  You cannot make someone dominant. You cannot make someone dominate, yes you can “lead” or “guide”, but ultimately, we can only be who we are and want to do the things that we want or need to.

I also saw someone ask within a blog if a certain type of relationship were possible.  Someone had answered with a point blank "No". And who are they to say that a certain type of relationship isn't possible?

There are people living the type of relationship that this person claimed couldn't exist.  And it is this which really pisses me off.  It may not be able to exist for them, it doesn't mean that it cannot exist for anyone else.  I wish at times people would say, that "no, for me it doesn't or couldn't work" rather than a "no its not possible".

It is possible.

People live it. 

Just because it doesn't work for that person, doesn't mean it doesn't for others. There are no hard and fast rules.  Anything in reality can exist and probably does for someone somewhere.

There is no one correct way. There isn't a "true" way, and one label doesn't fit all.  In fact, labels can define too much who we are and people then find that they do things to "fit" under that label, trying or forcing themselves to change, to fit under that label instead of being true to who they are.

It is important that we can be who we are, follow the path that we want to, not defined by labels, or being told that what we do is wrong. 

If it works for us it isn't wrong. 

And if something is wrong, if it doesn't work, then you find a way to deal with that and do something else.  Someone else can never be an "authority" on your own needs and wants apart from you. Nobody can ever be an "authority" on your relationship apart from those within it. 

Follow your mind, your heart and what is right for you, because at the end of the day, this is what matters.

1 comment:

  1. Great, Kat.
    Just great.

    But then you knew I would like it, because you read me.

    I especially appreciate the bit about trying to get someone to be dominant (or submissive, for that matter) who JUST ISN'T. There's a difference between letting a partner know that you are open to exploring something together, maybe allowing them to free urges they've been repressing. But it's quite another matter if relating anywhere along the bdsm spectrum just doesn't speak to them. And at that point you have to decide how to deal with your own needs.

    There's a corollary to the No True Religion issue. Not only are there no anointed experts. You can't even count on always doing what you're used to doing. I've heard of some doms (they were just men) who don't seem to adjust their methods and goals to the sub in their care. By not going cautiously and paying attention, they ended up with more bad reactions than they might have. They were pushing, rather than leading, which at least from my experience is more likely to result in resistance or a downright crash.

    It's like cooking. You have your basic recipe. And then what does it say?

    "Season to taste."

    Or adjust the amount of flour in the pie dough to account for humidity.

    Thanks again for this.
    A great post.