COURTESY OF: www.enslavement.org.uk/fivepoint
This is a scale of how much authority over the
"bottom" is acquired by the "top". It is an attempt to
describe a system of terms which will be useful in discussing the various
phenomena associated with SM, D/s and M/s.
In itself, this ordering is not intended as a value
judgement. However, many people implicitly place higher value on more intense
activities and so something similar to this list is lurking in the subconscious
of many BDSM subcultures. This gives rise to two widespread causes of
antagonism: people looking up the scale with a "even if you're a
submissive (or slave), you're no better than us masochists (or
submissives)" agenda; and people looking down with a "stop pretending
you're really a submissive (or slave), you're just a masochist (or a
submissive)" attitude. It is not unusual for the resulting arguments to
hinge on the word "genuine", as one group is not the genuine article
according to the definition of the other.
My opinion is that most SM vs D/s vs M/s arguments are
caused by the belief that everyone should call themselves whatever they like,
and that common definitions are inappropriate. My belief is that meaningful
communication is impossible without commonly held definitions.
1. Fetish bottom: "I worship your boots and want to
serve them."
Fetish bottoms differ from other types of fetishist in that
the object they eroticise is associated with a top. They are almost invariably
male, and in the pure form have little need to interact with the top or to submit
their will in real life encounters.
2. Masochist: "I want you to use the needles
tonight."
Masochists take things a step further and grant the top
authority to subject them to pain or humiliation, or perhaps to physical
control such as bondage. However, the dynamic of these scenes is still one of
equality, and it is clear that everything is done for mutual gratification.
3. Roleplay submissive: "Can I be the
Girl-Caught-Shoplifting tonight?"
This involves assuming roles for a temporary scene (from a few
hours up to a few days) which would normally be associated with inequality and
with one person having power or authority over the other: for example, a store
detective blackmailing a shoplifter into obeying him. However, it is understood
that the goal of the scene is direct mutual satisfaction for both top and
bottom (eg, that the "shoplifter's" desire to be held down,
"ravished" and sworn at is catered to.)
4. Servant: "What can I do for you now, Sir?"
This can sometimes be difficult to distinguish from a long
term relationship involving roleplay submission. However, the essential feature
of a servant or service orientated submissive / bottom is their desire to do
things purely for their top's benefit (literally, to serve.) Hence, a servant
may derive great satisfaction from doing housework at the top's home.
Nevertheless, this kind of service is voluntary and is an example of
"ongoing voluntary submission". The bottom constantly chooses to stay
and to serve, even if that choice is just implicit in their continued presence
and obedience.
5. Slave: "You have the authority to decide things for
me, Master."
A slave differs from other types of bottom in that they have
no (enforceable) rights with respect to the top. In particular, they cannot
remove themselves from the relationship, and cannot themselves chose to impose
restrictions on what is done to them. This lack of rights in the face of the
top's acknowledged authority over them constitutes ownership. The difference
between a servant and a slave can be summarised by: "Ownership rather than
obedience is the defining quality of slavery; obedience rather than ownership
is the defining quality of submission." -->
There are two further subdivisions:
5a External Enslavement - in which slavery is enforced by
external forces, such as threats to hunt slaves down and retake possession of
them if they run away. This approach has limited plausibility in a modern
society, at least for any length of time.
5b Internal Enslavement - in which slavery is acheived by
forging an emotional bond which the slave cannot extricate themselves from.
This approach is ultimately dependent on the validity of the Internal
Enslavement Hypothesis (in short, that submissives with such a great need to be
owned exist, and that a Master can create a psychological environment in which
that need comes to the fore.)
No comments:
Post a Comment