D/s & BDSM Information - Is D/s Unhealthy?

by DurLlwyd - version 1.0

I write this knowing full well I am, as they say, 'preaching to the choir.' I suspect those who would take the time to read this already view D/s as a 'healthy' lifestyle. I also doubt that any article or writing will sway those who condemn Lifestyle D/s. In the end, this article basically amounts to 'venting.' Venting as a result of having to justify myself one too many times to the well meaning but sometimes disapproving majority.

Those outside of the lifestyle will often suggest that any authority shift between people is 'unhealthy.' The most common reasons sited are: 1) Being in such a relationship is, in essence, giving up an individual's right to self-determination, and; 2) Being in a D/s relationship somehow weakens the submissive. On the Dominant side, the most common theme of complaint is the premise that it is 'unhealthy' for anyone to seek power over another.

Relating to the first point, it is interesting to note that those who insist an individual must be free to make their own choices will, in the same breath, deny that same individual the right to live the lifestyle of their choosing. If a person must be free to make their own choices, why can they not choose to live a D/s lifestyle? Critics attempt to avoid this hypocrisy by suggesting that anyone choosing a D/s lifestyle is 'damaged' and only does so out of injury and ignorance. This is a redirection argument that dodges the question of why they believe D/s to be 'bad' in the first place.

To meaningfully address the concern over 'self-determination' we have to identify the reasons a person may consider this a problem. The answer is usually connected with the idea of personal rights-specifically the assumption that it is 'wrong' to elect to give up any right for any reason.

The problem with this view is that it denies a person the 'right' to construct the environment they feel best suits their own wants and needs. The position that others are somehow 'wrong' to voluntarily yield rights denies them the authority for 'self-determination.' It becomes an issue of moral perspective to suggest a person does not have the 'right' to give up a 'right.' Because it becomes a moral debate, there is no way to continue a rational discussion on that specific point. The best we can do with differences in moral perspective is agree to disagree.

To shift to more pragmatic issues, it may be helpful to use an example: When a person places money in a mutual fund they give up the right to personally select all the ways their money is invested. A person has full control of which fund (if any) they choose to place their money into, but once the money is in a fund, specific investment decisions are made by the fund manager. By placing money into the fund, they have given up a certain level of control in order to gain the advantage of the fund manager's judgment.

It is not in anyone's best interest to always make all their own decisions; this is why we often defer to the judgment of doctors, lawyers, mechanics, and other specialists. I am hoping that at this point it can be conceded that there are circumstances where any person would not only benefit, but would also prefer, to have another make specific decisions for them.

A submissive is making an analogous choice-they are choosing to defer to the judgment of someone they trust. They may make this choice for a wide range of reasons, which may include but are not limited any of the following:

The submissive may be better suited and more comfortable as a front-line worker than as a manager. The skills needed for managing are not the same skills needed for performing labor directly. Somehow, people have gotten it into their heads that everyone makes a good manager, which just isn't so. It may help to look at this in the context of another example, such as the film industry. Not every great actor is a great director, and not every great director is a great actor; people are just gifted with different skills.

The submissive may feel (justifiably) that the Dominant will make better choices then they might make themselves. It is not to anyone's discredit to suggest that there is someone in the world who might be able to make better choices then we can make ourselves (as was evidenced in the previous examples of medical doctors and mechanics). This is not some unrealistic belief that the decision maker will always be correct, but rather supposes that over a given length of time, the elected decision maker may average better choices.

The submissive may simply prefer to not be in the role of primary decision-maker. History is filled with the stories of remarkable people who preferred to be the right hand of the king rather then the king himself. This is not a sign of weakness or unwillingness to accept the outcome of decisions. As an example of an entire culture that reflected these ideals, the samurai of feudal Japan were fiercely capable people who idealized and honored the role of loyal service (in fact, the word 'samurai' means 'servant').

The second point expressed by some is that D/s 'weakens' the submissive. The argument generally suggests that the submissive might cease to be able to care for themselves as a result relaying on the Dominant. There is a certain irony to this line of thinking when you consider it is the submissive that often takes care of most of the day-to-day affairs. Perhaps it would be more realistic to suggest that the Dominant may become dependent on the submissive! The other side of this argument, which at least has some logic, is the concern the submissive will loose the ability to manage affairs in a big-picture context.

The failure of this argument is that it assumes the only way to learn is by trial and error. Rather, it is often better to learn by watching someone who is already skilled at a given task. If the people who hold to this argument would take the time to really get to know those who have been in the lifestyle for extended periods of time, they would find that in general, submissives learn a great deal about such skills as a result of watching their Dominants. However, just because they have learned these skills still doesn't mean it is what they prefer to do.

Another point that needs to be addressed is the position that a submissive might become 'too dependent' on the Dominant. The first issue here is that 'too dependent' is a completely subjective term. What is really being said is that the person may be more dependent on the Dominant then the critic is comfortable with. This does not mean that anyone involved in the relationship is uncomfortable with the arrangement. It seems to me, it is the people involved who should be the judge of what is too much.

Also, those putting forth this argument are using the term 'dependent' a bit loosely. In a very real sense I am 'dependent' on the farmers who grow the food that I eat, but no one seems to be very concerned about it. I am also 'dependent' on the doctors who treat me when I am ill. Again, no one seems very concerned. The reason no one is concerned is because no one expects farmers to quit growing food, nor doctors to stop treating the sick. Reliability and replacibility are the underlying concerns. The unspoken accusation is that the Dominant may be unreliable and it is therefore wrong to depend on them. Personally, as a Dominant, I find this offensive. In the world of vanilla culture, maybe honor is a forgotten word, but my experience shows me it is still remembered in the D/s culture. Secondly, who ever said that a Dominant wasn't replaceable? Again, this is an accusation based in a lack of understanding. The preconceived negativity of the pundits is really the only issue.

Those who would damn a submissive for choosing a role of service do so out of the fear that the choice somehow reflects on them. They seem unable to come to terms with the idea that each person can make a different choice without any singular choice being the 'correct' one. These critics appear threatened by the mere existence of such a choice.

On the other side of the coin are those who would fault a Dominant for wanting to be in the role of authority. Again, there is a certain hypocrisy in the argument that would dictate that others may not accept a position of authority that another has consensually given to them.

There are many arguments put forth as to why it is 'bad' for a Dominant to seek authority over a submissive. Some are simply based in ignorance, some on social convention, and yet others are more instinctual. In regard to ignorance, I don't suppose this or any article will be adequate to educate someone on all the intricacies of the D/s lifestyle. As for social conventions, well they are just that - conventions. Conventions are no more then 'how things are normally done' within a given group, and we have already conceded that D/s is outside of the norm. Just because something is different doesn't make it wrong.

Perhaps the most meaningful discussion that can be had relates to the natural tendency to distrust those who seek power or authority. However, just because there is a natural tendency for concern, does not mean that concern is justified. To determine if this concern is applicable to D/s it is necessary to look at its cause.

At the risk of starting an entirely different debate, it is helpful to touch on an idea from evolutionary psychology. In a limited-resource (competitive) system there is a tendency to perceive any increase in 'power' in others as a threat. As the 'power' goes up for one, it must therefore go down for another, at least on a relative scale. To give an example, if one hunter improves his skill, it reduces the likelihood of other hunters being successful because the successful hunter will kill more of the available food. As a result of this dynamic, there is a natural knee-jerk negative reaction to other people striving to increase their own power or authority.

There is another aspect to this equation, however-in this case, the Dominant is not taking resources from the common pool; they are specifically taking authority over the submissive, not over the population in general. Secondly, they are doing this at the request of the submissive. And as was discussed above, very possibly this is to the benefit of the submissive.

It is also relevant to consider while it is natural for people to have a reaction against others increasing their power or authority, it is also natural for people to build power structures and alliances. In a very real sense, the joining of a submissive and Dominant is the coupling of different but complimentary skill sets that benefits both parties. Each person fills the role for which they are best suited and as a team they net a better result for the group. Functionally, this breaks down to alliances and the specialization of labor, which are not usually regarded as negative concepts.

As strange as it may seem to some folks, it is possible for someone to seek power and/or authority without malicious intent. Those who are quick to speak of why an interest in a dominant role is 'bad' tend to leave out the fact that most Dominants enjoy caring for and protecting their submissive. The assumption that a Dominant could only enjoy their role for disreputable reasons is nothing more then a display of prejudice.

In the end, it all comes down to what an individual wants. If a person chooses to live a D/s lifestyle, it is a deeply personal choice that is likely the result of much soul-searching. There have always been and always will be, those who will insist on seeing what they do not understand in a negative light.

« Back to Community Articles

All images and materials on this site protected by copyright. More: credits