Integrity

There's come to be a bit of a conflict at my friend, morningstar's place. She entered into and won a "challenge" put up on another blog by a person who, for a short time last year, served as her houseboy. The person in question "switches" -- moving from Dominant to submissive in his BDSM practice. He posted the challenge from the Dominant side of the equation, and offered to become submissive for a defined period of time (and within certain limits) to the person who won the challenge. That was the prize offered for the winning of the challenge.

When the challenge was ended and morningstar won, she began to make plans to collect her prize. That's when things got "dicey." It seems that the terms of the challenge "pay off" were to be the subject of negotiation and manipulation, until she finally put the whole question about what to do to the readers of her blog. I stated that I'd observed the dynamic with this "houseboy" last year and so was not surprised when he, in his dominant persona, refused to play the submissive part "as it was written." I called it a circumstance where the integrity that was being (and had been) displayed was marginal. That's the way I feel about it. It could be attributed to a difference in the way Dominant and submissive personalities approach the world -- perhaps Dominants become accustomed to changing the rules whenever it suits them, but any submissive worth the name understands that keeping your word is essential in a power dynamic.

It seems that there is real angst over words I wrote about "integrity" in response to the whole business. The individual in question took exception to my view of things in this comment, writing:

stay away from my integrity you have no knowledge of it.

Well, fair enough I suppose. I don't have any knowledge except what I have acquired by reading the ups and downs of this volatile relationship for many months now.

It reminds me of an interraction that T had, years ago, with my then husband. He initiated a bit of SM play that was predicated on an "exchange." The terms were that if she would eat a dill pickle, he would be her "plaything" for a session. T HATES and DESPISES pickles, and he knew it. They bantered back and forth for a time, but finally the deal was struck. She kept her end of the bargain... and not without some real struggle. He, on the other hand, called a halt to the promised session almost as soon as it started -- declaring that he just couldn't do it. Sorry!

Maybe that sort of on again off again decision making works for a "Dominant" who can simply choose to be arbitrary if they want to, but it is deadly when a submissive engages in that nonsense. You can't give up power and then yank it back. It isn't appropriate, honest, fair -- it lacks integrity. AND it is my belief that a submissive who does not act with integrity undermines the entire basis for the relationship.

The submissive has very little to offer, when it comes down to it. We give our word. We accept the dynamic. Then it is about keeping the promise, no matter what vagaries or unexpected circumstances ensue. To do less is to refuse to actually give over the power. It is tantamount to a statement that one will submit just exactly as and how we decide to. It is the essence of "topping from the bottom." It is not submission and it is not part of a legitimate power exchange.

That's how I see it.

swan