Since I first taught the workshop/lecture that spawned this article the first time, I've given the presentation for NLA: New England, the Brown University LGBTA, and hope to take it on the road...

This article originally appeared in Sandmutopian Guardian magazine.

This article stems from a lecture/workshop I presented at the 1995 Anything for Love conference in Columbus, OH on the subject of Full Time/Long Term SM/DS relationships. I've seen a great deal written about emotional safety and negotiation of scenes, but much "how-to" writing centers on a single encounter and not on longer term circumstances. My aim here is to present some common pitfalls in building relationships and to provide readers with some jumping off points for further thought and personal exploration into the topic.

Although I can certainly provide examples of relationships that are full time but not long term (a week-long slave contract) or long term but not full time (weekends-only), my main concern here will be with those relationships which are both--ongoing, every day, cohabitating kind of relationships.

WHEN YOU "ASSUME" YOU KNOW WHAT YOU MAKE...

We have one easily recognizable model for such relationships: the traditional heterosexual marriage. In some ways this parallels a master/slave relationship: each partner has a role to play, husband or wife, and promises, vows, and contracts are made. But, what does "to have and to hold" really mean? Is that a promise of sexual availability? How about "to obey" which is still in many wives' vows? Sounds suspiciously like an s/m relationship to me. Where traditional marriage and a negotiated s/m relationship ought to differ, initially, is in the assumption of the roles. Many marriages are based on shared cultural assumptions about what the roles of HUSBAND and WIFE are, for example, HUSBAND takes out the trash, mows the lawn, holds down a job, whereas WIFE cooks, cleans, shops for food, maintains the household, accompanies husband to company parties. But what if the assumptions turn out to differ? What if one partner doesn't fit the traditional role their partner wants them to? In many vanilla mainstream marriages, partners marry under these assumptions without finding out that they have differing points of view. Things rapidly deteriorate from nuptial bliss to living hell.

The same pitfall awaits the ongoing s/m relationship, if the individuals involved make differing assumptions about what it means to be in a top/bottom relationship. I'll begin with general assumptions about the roles TOP and BOTTOM and about s/m in general which may turn out not to be true.

Don't assume that:

且ecause you like S/M you must have it as the basis of all your important relationships.

且ecause you and your partner play S/M, AND you are in a full time relationship (perhaps married), therefore you must be in S/M full time.

丕ll difficulties of day to day interaction can be solved through S/M (punishment, orders, etc.)

丕ll negotiation happens at the beginning, eliminating the need for continual updating of roles and rules.

丕ll roles are an expression of the "true, inner nature" of a person and are therefore static and will never change.

冉he top is always the decision-maker or initiator.

冉he top's needs always get first priority. (or vice versa!)

DICHOTOMIES: YOU SAY TOMATO, I SAY... TOMATO

Even when we seem to have the same vocabulary at our disposal, we may have very different definitions of what words like master and slave mean, very different expectations of what each role will be. Here is one stark dichotomy I call the "who washes whom?" test: In version 1, the slave washes the master: prepares the master or mistress' bath, with correct water temperature, suds, and soap, scrubs the top's back and feet and kneels dutifully by the tub with a dry towel at the ready. In version 2, the master washes the slave: the top sees to it that slaves are groomed to perfection and prepared to the top's satisfaction, perhaps as an owner would groom a prized pet or a rider his or her horse.

Obviously, if the slave thinks it will be one way and the master thinks it will be the other, there will be conflict. In a one night encounter it may not matter, but when it comes to needs being met in the long term, a difference of this type is going to result in dissatisfaction.

Here's another major sticking point stemming from point of view: what is "punishment?" What if the top thinks of "punishment" as inflicting pain, and turns to spanking or caning, but the bottom likes to be spanked and caned...? This formula may work fine for a night of rough play. But in an ongoing relationship, how does the top "punish" the bottom then to reinforce the top's will? If getting spanked is the best form of attention the bottom can wish for, perhaps the only "punishment" to dish out is to withhold the attention of the top, deprive the bottom. The top must modify his or her definitions and behavior.

RECONCILING ROLES

Part of the whole point of roles is for them to be comfortable. They give us a feeling of security and allow us to go through life feeling that know what is expected of us. But in S/M relationships it may take some time and fine tuning to settle into roles which work in the long term. If the most basic roles are Top and Bottom, within each role there are many components that play a part. Tops may be a mixture of part sadist, part owner, part boss, caretaker, God/Goddess, initiator, decision-maker, and many more. Bottoms, likewise, may be some combination of masochist, prized possession/pet, rebellious instigator, captive, servant or slave.

Some of these role components are conducive in day to day interaction. Others, although they spark the libido and make for hot s/m play, aren't as "user-friendly." Some specific dungeon roles can be adapted easily to day-to-day roles, while others are more of a stretch:

兄mart Ass Masochist

A S.A.M. tends to be a willful, independent, capable person--someone who has a lot to offer as a partner. This is not a contradiction with choosing to give up control in the bedroom. The gift of this person's submission can be very touching and the basis of a deep bond, a very special brand of loyalty for the Top who is able to accept a bottom who is not necessarily obedient. But this type of bottom needs to realize the difference between being a brat and asserting opinions, and also between being rebellious and being lazy. A bottom who is constantly in need of supervision, correction, or motivation is not upholding his or her end of the partnership.

主rill Sargent/Amazon/Unimpeachable Deity

If the top is the type whose dominant style depends upon inspiring fear, with bottoms cowering awestruck or afraid, it will be very difficult to maintain this every day. The top must realize that if he or she relies upon too much mystique, that mystique is unlikely to survive living with someone. The top may have to develop or discover other qualities within the style of mastery, and also choose carefully at what moments to reveal his or her awesome power.

以elpless Captive

This is a hot fantasy role, but how does this bottom expect to contribute to a partnership out of scene? It is no one's job to lie around looking pretty in chains all the time. Can the Pirate King keep the princess in his bed the entire voyage, or must she get out and swab the deck from time to time, or, even become a member of the crew?

代ursemaid/Caretaker Top

Call him or her super-top: they always have everything scripted to the last detail, every need of the bottom anticipated, every contingency planned for, and their bottoms rave about what great scenes they've had. It's obvious how some traits are desirable in a partner: organized, supportive, considerate. But some caretakers are control-freaks in disguise. Tops who overplan are in danger of burning out if they feel they must keep up that level all the time. And their bottoms can become emotionally suffocated. Remember that the partnership is built by both partners' efforts and that the bottom contributes, too.

THE REAL ISSUE: WHO DOES THE DISHES?

We've been speaking in terms of general emotional health, but we can delve deeper into the logistics of partnerships. Consider that all full time relationships, whether they are vanilla marriages or life-long ownership bonds, have two main issues that must be worked out: division of labor and meeting emotional/erotic needs. We S/M folk have a tendency to try to solve all problems through the framework of our S/M interactions because this is the framework we have probably done the most discussing and negotiating over. But this is not necessarily going to succeed.

Division of labor is really about two things, making money and housework. I'll start with housework. Husband/wife norms developed over years such that, for example, inside the house is her job (vacuuming, dusting, washing dishes) whereas outside the house is his job (mowing the law, raking the leaves, painting). But in an s/m relationship, you will be defining your roles from scratch. You do not have to be constrained by previous examples or cultural assumptions necessarily. Think of the who-washes-whom test: most things can go either way, leaving you free to define labor and divide responsibility any way you like.

So how about that housework? You may think you have it made if your bottom is a houseboy or a french maid. But, will that really work? Or are they only interested in performing these tasks if master or mistress's stern eye and firm hand are applied? Their dungeon role may not necessarily translate to a day to day role. For many people it is difficult to actually get any housework done while "in scene." Housework may be an issue that you and your partner will decide falls outside the scope of the s/m component of your relationship. I repeat: we have a tendency to try to solve all problems in the relationship through the s/m framework, but perhaps some things won't fit. Just because you decide to divide up the housework like vanilla housemates, roommates or domestic partners does not mean your s/m relationship is not "real" or that it is flawed.

This becomes a larger issue for some people when issues of who-supports-whom come up. Very few people see a contradiction if the Top is the breadwinner, the bottom the "kept" party, because it fits with the stereotype and assumptions. But what if it is the other way around? What if the bottom is the one with the job, or the better paying job? Allow yourself to define things another way. Perhaps the bottom's work and earning is another form of tribute or service to the top. Or perhaps the issue of earning and support needs to be separate from the S/M component of your relationship.

BUT WHAT ABOUT SEX?

I've saved the thorniest and most central issue for last. Getting erotic needs met can be a trick in any relationship, and it may be inextricable from the S/M component of a relationship since, for so many of us, S/M is integral to our sexuality. But consider first that for some people there will be times when S/M needs and sexual needs will be distinct: there is a big difference between wanting to be beaten on the back and being horny. Another important point to consider is that not every person can simply articulate their "needs" like making a laundry list, and also that these needs change over time. For these reasons, one single S/M framework may not be enough for an ongoing full time relationship.

THE CLASSIC dilemma is, of course, what happens when one partner wants to play or have sex and the other doesn't? Not tonight honey, I have a headache? S/M may simplify things, or it may complicate it. Here are hard questions to consider, some of which I believe should be included in negotiations:

What happens if the bottom has a headache, or has to get up in the morning, or what have you? In most S/M contexts it is the bottom's "duty" to perform. It is a hot fantasy to be in a state of constant sexual readiness, but is it possible? How will a bottom's feelings of inadequacy or guilt affect a relationship when/if he or she does not perform to such an expectation? A bottom may be eager to promise that he or she will never say no, but is it realistic or wise? If the bottom is reluctant, how should the bottom communicate this respectfully? Does it happen in or out of scene? Is there a protocol or must the bottom fall back on a safeword?

On the other side, what if the bottom is the horny, needy one? Is the bottom allowed to initiate a scene or sexual interest? Is s/he allowed to beg, for example? Or must it be discussed first, out of scene? What is proper? Is it part of this bottom's role to be constantly hungry for sex? Or is this bottom the more chaste type who must be "taken" or overcome by the top? If so, how does s/he indicate his or her interest?

What about those times when one partner or another just wants to cuddle or have vanilla sex? Is it possible to compromise or are your roles too rigid to allow it? If you each have switchable tendencies, is there room in your framework to temporarily switch roles--the Top ordering the bottom to beat him or her, for example?

The answers to these questions, will, of course, be unique to each partnership. Some of them won't be answerable in a pre-negotiation; they will have to be discovered in practice. This is one reason not to assume that after the initial negotiation that everything is set in stone. The negotiation is ongoing, the roles have some leeway in them to be shaped as the participants learn and grow. If you plan to be together for a lifetime, growth and change will certainly occur! Remember that not every issue has to be an S/M issue and that S/M relationships, like all healthy relationships, are based on mutual respect.

Return to Essays List

Return to ctan's home page