Why Control is Not Always What It Seems

You’ll have heard a “the submissive is in control” line before. They usually go something like this:

It is the Sub that sets the majority of any hard limits. The Sub that has the stop/go control of safe words. The sub that has more control over giving or withdrawing of consent.

Let’s assume, just for the sake of chatting about this, that submissive and bottom are the same thing, so this could apply in a relationship context or in a tussle for how BDSM play is going to proceed.

The “submissive is in control” view can encapsulate what you might see if you were an outside observer.

It’s not that the Dominant doesn’t have limits or can’t stop play (or withdraw consent), it’s just that this is all taken care of by the fact that they are in control of what is going on. If they don’t want to do something, they just don’t do it. Their consent is effectively baked into everything that happens, because the activities are their choice in the first place, and the activity stops if they want it to stop.

Most dominants absolutely do have hard limits as well. They generally have plenty of acts they have no interest in doing to their submissive. So they don’t. It’s that simple. And if they’re a good dominant, they probably communicate early on what they’re not interested in doing, so they can make sure they find a compatible partner.

I’ve made the choice to stop many scenes because they felt off, or because I saw things I thought were unsafe, or because I just wasn’t enjoying what was happening the way I expected to enjoy it. I’ve declined both individual acts and entire relationships because I did not want to do the things that particular submissive was looking for. That IS my consent, and those ARE my limits.

SO, WHO IS IN CONTROL?

I’m not sure “control” is always a good framework to talk about BDSM or that it gives a good picture of how power flows.

I think control is something you tend to see in the moment.

To oversimplify terribly, I think a good analogy is the boulder on top of a hill you learn about in basic physics. While the boulder is resting it has potential or stored energy and if it rolls down the hill that becomes kinetic energy.

While things are all going smoothly, dominants have a kind of kinetic control and submissive have a kind of potential control. The dominant is actively exercising theirs, while the submissive’s is stored.

But, if it’s required, it can rapidly swing the other way. A safeword is called, consent is withdrawn. The submissive’s control becomes kinetic and the dominant’s becomes potential.

Not a great analogy, but the point is that both people have control, it’s just in different forms and sometimes you don’t see it unless you know what you’re looking for.

feature image: Gordon Clark, Rebirth, 2013

4 Comments Add yours

  1. Christopher Hewitt says:

    Thank you for your incisiveness !

  2. Nerlon says:

    Basically I think that’s an important topic and it’s a good start for discussion.

    IMHO the boulder doesn’t have energy stored, it’s positioned next to a slope and there is ambient gravity.
    The sub also don’t have power unless given by the dom. If it’s not given then the sub as little options to counteract. That’s a rather abusive and or extreme or even criminal setting but it something people even crave.
    So while there is a lot of truth there, this is what I call a “borderline topic” where the ok/not ok line is blurred or fractal. The more you get into situational detail the more nuances will pop up.

    If I’m totally submitting to my witch, I consent to everything she may do to me which actually puts her limits as the active ones. Now where do I have power then? It’s actually something I don’t even want, accepting the fact in advance that if she ever want to cut off body parts, she may do that. Hypothetically and extreme but possible and even ethically ok because I consent to even that scenario. I don’t expect her to do that ever, but there are other extreme scenario she might do.

    There is RACK and SSC but there are people that play like that. The given consent in “ordinary” settings is definitely covered by this article. The more extreme styles are definitely not.

    Now I say “a sub is only in charge if the dom allows” or there would be no issue with real world slavery.

    1. Shari says:

      In real world slavery, the slave usually didn’t choose voluntarily to be a sub. I find the equation bewildering, speaking as sub.

      Choice is what makes all the difference, even if it is to submit wholeheartedly to someone else and by so ending up in a galley or be shipped off without having a choice at start, I refuse to believe is remotely the same.

  3. LillyIsMe says:

    Consent is the difference between abusive relationships and the radio ships practiced in BDSM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *