|
|
The Gift Theory
by Simon S.
Ays, copyright 1999
Simon's Note to Readers: My position on this
concept will probably be more than a little unpopular with some folks.
After all, how dare any respectable dominant in today's touchy feely new
age politically correct world not agree that submission is a gift?! But
then again, I've never been one to seek popularity over clarity.
Now when I talk about this I'm going to use the word "you" a lot and
probably "he" and "she" and "him" and "her" a few times. Obviously I'm not
saying "you" and meaning anyone in particular, it's simply the generic
"you" in this case. And any references to "he" and "she" would apply as
easily if you reversed the genders in most cases - it's just easier for me
to write from my own particular perspective. (For simplicity I'm also
going to use the words "dominant" and "submissive" as if they aren't
really just adjectives, but that's a subject for another article.)
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said,
in a rather scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
-- Lewis Carroll, _Through the Looking Glass_, 1872
"Submission as a Gift"
OK - my basic premise is that I do not think
of nor refer to submission as a "gift" that can be given to another. Now,
to be sure everyone understands what I do and don't mean here, I'm going
to add a couple of clarifiers:
Do I believe that "submission" itself is of great value?
-- Yes, there's really no argument there for me.
Do I believe that you bring your "submission" to the exchange?
-- Yes, I believe that you certainly have to do that.
Do I believe you can call it a "gift" or "giving" though?
-- No, I absolutely do not think so.
Why? Because to me - and yes YMMV (your mileage may vary) a lot -- there's
something about a gift that can be taken back at any time that just
doesn't ring true. If it's a gift that you give but that he doesn't have
the right to keep - regardless of whether or not you want it back
from him - what kind of gift is that?
If it's a gift that you can take back -- then do you become an
Indian Giver of some kind if you do decide to take it back? And once it's
been given and then taken back -- do you really just clean it up, put it
in a new box with a fresh ribbon on it and give it again to someone
else?
I agree that it may seem like a wonderfully romantic concept to call it a
gift when you're actively giving it to someone. Or when you think about
how you will give it to someone. But to me it doesn't sound quite
as good when I think about it as "the gift that keeps on being given" to
as many as you wish to give it to. Sort of like you're a neverending
bottomless well of giving. Too selfless and altruistic sounding to me.
Particularly when what we're really talking about is something that's one
of your own personal deepest driving desires and needs.
Also, if you're not involved in a full-time relationship (or are involved
in an open relationship), and instead choose to submit to various
dominants at different times, then are we talking about a special kind of
gift that's temporarily given -- but only for use during a
particular time and only in pre-negotiated ways?
In fact, even in a 24/7 relationship, if you're negotiating at all
about how you will or won't submit, and in what ways to which kinds of
things -- then what kind of gift is given with so many strings attached?
Add in the concept of safewords now and we wind up with a gift that the
person you gave it to can use freely only in the ways you
tell them they are permitted to and must cease using immediately if you
ever say so. Still sound like a gift to you? Well not to me - so perhaps
our definitions vary?
Looking at simple dictionary definitions, I see that one of the things to
consider is how we want to define the word gift - because I do see there
are ways that submission can be a gift, but I do not see
that it can be given. Here are the two basic definitions from the
Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Gift - noun [Middle English, from Old Norse, first appeared 12th
Century]
1 : a notable capacity, talent, or endowment.
2 : (a) something voluntarily transferred by one person
to another without compensation;
(b) something freely given by one person to another
for his benefit or pleasure.
Alright, here's why I say submission can be a
gift but can not be given. There's no doubt that many submissives I've
known have notable capacities, talents and endowments that are
recognizable as valuable submissive traits or characteristics. So part one
of the definition above really does make sense to me. I firmly believe
that there are certain "gifts" that are necessary for someone to be
a submissive. And I believe that someone who has those necessary traits
is, in fact, a very "gifted" individual. So, yes, that part of the
definition I absolutely agree with.
The place where the concept of gift ceases to apply, for me, is when we
try to use the second part of the definition. To me, once a gift has been
"voluntarily and freely transferred to me for my benefit and pleasure" I
do not expect that the giver would expect to retain any right or
power to retake the gift. No, thinking of it that way makes me think more
of renting or leasing, or perhaps some other form of borrowing -- but
absolutely not as the recipient of a gift would feel.
In fact, to go a bit deeper, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) speaks of
a gift as: "something, the possession of which is transferred to
another without the expectation or receipt of an equivalent."
Now, would any submissive really say that they'd enter into a power
exchange relationship where there was no exchange at all? If you
didn't receive whatever it is that you consider valuable in return,
would you really enter into the relationship? Or would you really stay in
it if there was absolutely nothing of any value at all in it for you?
Now the OED said no "expectation" and no "receipt." And it said of an
"equivalent" value. So would you really want to think that the one to whom
you're giving your valuable gift must, in fact, be sure to give back
absolutely nothing of any value in order to let you call what you're
doing "giving him a gift" -- does that sound like a good and sensible idea
to you?
I have a couple of other problems with the gift theory too. For one thing
there's the old saying that "you shouldn't look a gift horse in the
mouth." The meaning was that you shouldn't question the value of a gift.
But I can tell you, unequivocally, that I absolutely do question, and
finally judge, the quality and the value of someone's submission. Just as
I'd question and judge the quality and value of someone's dominance. Even
if you want to say that what someone gives is not really just their
submission but instead it is "themselves" that they give, I can tell you
that I question and judge everything about a 'person' too. We all make
judgements - all day, every day - and we only seek to mislead ourselves if
we attempt to claim otherwise.
Think about it. Don't we talk of all the safety protocols that people
absolutely should follow when meeting someone for the first time (or two)?
Don't we advise people to get and check references? And doesn't this
advice have to apply in both directions? Should a dominant simply trust
that everything a submissive tells him is true? Because if those protocols
do apply, then what kind of gift is it that we have to question and
investigate closely before deciding to accept? Still sound just like a
gift to you?
The other problem I have with the gift theory is also related to the
"don't question first" concept - but is more the "don't talk about it"
kind of trouble. Do you remember reading "The Gift of the Magi" - the O.
Henry story? That's the one where a very poor couple wish to give each
other Christmas presents (gifts) but have no money to do so. So he sells
his treasured watch and buys her a set of combs for her beautiful hair
while she cuts off her beautiful hair and sells it to buy him a fob for
his treasured watch. While this is a wonderfully romantic story, it also
shows how foolish people can be, and why communication is so
important and can help prevent problems before they occur. Treating
something as a gift which must not be questioned, in part because there's
no value received in exchange, can lead to a lot more problems than just
the loss of a watch and some hair -- though those things were metaphors
for all things of very great personal value.
So, the bottom line is that I prefer to think of things a little
differently than this. (big surprise?)
To me this is not about a "Gift of Submission" any more than it is about a
"Gift of Dominance." My preference is to have someone simply come to me
because she has desires, wants and needs that she wishes to satisfy. Not
for some altruistic reason. Not because she's packaged her submission as
some kind of gift-wrapped bundle for me. But because she desires, wants
and needs to be owned and to be owned by me, to serve and to serve me, and
because she wishes to live her life knowing that she's doing exactly what
she desires, wants and needs to do.
I don't expect someone to give me her submission. I don't want or need it
-- she does. You see, she is a submissive, and her submission is
something that she "owns" fully. And I mean "owns" in the sense that she's
fully responsible for her submission. Depending on the road we choose to
travel together perhaps it's the only thing that she'll fully own once
she's become mine to do with as I will.
When I begin a more serious relationship, after whatever initial period to
be sure we both want this, I require someone to consent to surrender to
me. By doing this she consents to surrender to my will, to my control, to
my decisions. That's what she does -- she does not give me a gift
of anything -- she simply surrenders her consent, once and to me (not to
any particular pre-negotiated acts or actions).
Here again YMMV, but to me consent is something you do to a person, not to
an act or an activity. So by doing this she chooses to make one last
decision - to give me her consent to do with her as I will. This is
because it's what she desires, wants and needs to do in order to be
herself. In this way, she's able to be the submissive that she is, she's
able to surrender her consent as she desired to, and she's able to begin
to live her life as who she needs to be.
This certainly isn't to say that this is the "One True Way" (OTW), or that
if you do things differently you're doing them wrong. I'm not sure there's
any generic OTW that would work for everyone -- but I do know that there's
a OTW for me, and that I do things my way. This also isn't to say that
doing things this way means there's never any reluctance or resistance to
deal with. It simply means that one of the core beliefs is that consenting
to me was the choice she made -- and so the rest of the choices are mine.
It means that no matter what else, there's that strong foundation to build
on. Without foundation there can be no structure, and without structure
you can play but you can't do much more.
So, to close for now, the reasons I don't agree with the "Gift Theory" are
many and varied. Some are because of the way the word has been defined by
those who went before us. Some are due to the dangers and problems I see
involved in thinking of it that way. And some are simply my own personal
preference. But everyone has the same right to prefer whatever they like.
So if you like thinking of submission as a gift, if it makes you feel good
to think of it that way, then of course you have the right to continue to
think and feel that way. My intention and my interest hasn't been in
attempting to change your mind -- but simply to present a viewpoint that's
perhaps different from the one that you hear most often.
Any and all comments are welcome.
Original Source and Contact Information
Simon S. Ays
« Back to
D/s Articles
|
|
