STRUCTURAL BDSM VS RELATIONSHIP BDSM
Back in 2000 when I started to explore the conflict between structuralist and transgressionist groups in the scene I was primarily interested in finding a new way to define the conflict between was is called “old guard” and “new guard”. I felt this was essential because the bulk of material on that subject was written from such a hopelessly gay perspective that hets could not relate to any of it and to read the stuff made one feel like an anthropologist studying some little tribe off in the woods somewhere, so little did it have in common with the het experience. As time has passed, however, it has become obvious to me that the sources of conflict are far more varied and diverse and involve not only large groupings within the scene but much smaller sub-groups as well.
One of the most common sources of conflict in scene groups seems to be between those who view BDSM as having a set of exterior values to which they expect all to conform and those who view it is an organic part of a relationship not subject to any exterior value structure. This relates very closely to the structuralist/transgressionist conflict with the principal difference being that those into organic relationships are not necessarily out to rock the boat but rather simply want to live their lives without external interference.
For example, definition of role is very important to those who want the external structure. It really matters to them if there is a difference between a sub and a bottom or a top and a dominant. Such things determine how they relate to others in the scene and within their own relationships as well. This frankly makes them infuriating to those (such as myself) who do not consider definitions to be of any importance whatsoever and are content to deal with people as they are, not as they should be. But as the need to define roles is of such great importance to the first group, they cannot see why anyone would become impatient with them. It also creates a problem for them in that they feel an obligation to live up to their own definitions and, as they are human and have bad days, they often suffer great pangs of conscience when they fail to. It also causes them to make fools of themselves when dealing with those who do not ascribe to their point of view, often attempting to remonstrate with them about how they are not living up to the preconceived role.
Relationship based BDSM works somewhat different. Role is not that important, the relationship is. Mutual affection is the pre-eminent concern, unlike the structured group which looks on affection as a potential menace, something that gets in the way of the purity of the system. In one the dominant is horrified at the thought of the dom and sub loving each other. In the other, they cannot conceive of a relationship without love and often they view people who hold the first opinion as being, well, not entirely sane. And Pleasure, the hedonic lifestyle, is of paramount importance in all activity in the bulk of relationship-based BDSM groupings. There is no better sign of the difference between the two groupings than these two phrases:
“Serving even when you don’t want to serve,” from the structural group.
“If it isn’t fun, don’t do it,” from the relationship-based group.
The differences between these two approaches can lead to some interesting conflicts when the adherints run into each other. Let me give an example.
A structuralist comes into a situation with the assumption that all subs are expected to behave in a certain manner and any dom worth his funny hat will of course expect his sub to follow the rules and punish her if she does not. Then he encounters a sub who is in a relationship-based grouping and she does something he considers unsublike. He, following what he believes to be a universal procedure, goes to her dom and complains. And the other dom laughs! What has happened is that the first dom has assumed an obligation on the part of the other dom that the second dom does not adhere to, because in a true relationship-based grouping, the sub, at least as she relates to those outside of the relationship, can do no wrong! Remonstrating in such a situation gets nowhere. The other couple simply does not care.
Or at a meeting one sub gets up and talks and talks in great 12 step-like detail about the horrible struggles she is having with being a submissive in her relationship and how hard she is working to be a good submissive and half of the rest of the people in the meeting are trying very hard not to laugh at her because they are wondering why she is going through all that agony over something that really isn’t very important and who cares about her silly problems anyway?
Thus, what you have is one group that feels a need to scrunch all experience into a set of preconceived notions of behavior and attitude and often a need to impose that point of view on others. While on the other hand you have a group that is not at all interested in the concerns of the first group and could not care less what it thinks matters. Given those differing attitudes, it is inevitable that conflict will arise between the two groups and there is nothing that can be done about it except for the followers of both sides to try to realize that something different is going on in the minds of the other people.
Back in 2000 when I started to explore the conflict between structuralist and transgressionist groups in the scene I was primarily interested in finding a new way to define the conflict between was is called “old guard” and “new guard”. I felt this was essential because the bulk of material on that subject was written from such a hopelessly gay perspective that hets could not relate to any of it and to read the stuff made one feel like an anthropologist studying some little tribe off in the woods somewhere, so little did it have in common with the het experience. As time has passed, however, it has become obvious to me that the sources of conflict are far more varied and diverse and involve not only large groupings within the scene but much smaller sub-groups as well.
One of the most common sources of conflict in scene groups seems to be between those who view BDSM as having a set of exterior values to which they expect all to conform and those who view it is an organic part of a relationship not subject to any exterior value structure. This relates very closely to the structuralist/transgressionist conflict with the principal difference being that those into organic relationships are not necessarily out to rock the boat but rather simply want to live their lives without external interference.
For example, definition of role is very important to those who want the external structure. It really matters to them if there is a difference between a sub and a bottom or a top and a dominant. Such things determine how they relate to others in the scene and within their own relationships as well. This frankly makes them infuriating to those (such as myself) who do not consider definitions to be of any importance whatsoever and are content to deal with people as they are, not as they should be. But as the need to define roles is of such great importance to the first group, they cannot see why anyone would become impatient with them. It also creates a problem for them in that they feel an obligation to live up to their own definitions and, as they are human and have bad days, they often suffer great pangs of conscience when they fail to. It also causes them to make fools of themselves when dealing with those who do not ascribe to their point of view, often attempting to remonstrate with them about how they are not living up to the preconceived role.
Relationship based BDSM works somewhat different. Role is not that important, the relationship is. Mutual affection is the pre-eminent concern, unlike the structured group which looks on affection as a potential menace, something that gets in the way of the purity of the system. In one the dominant is horrified at the thought of the dom and sub loving each other. In the other, they cannot conceive of a relationship without love and often they view people who hold the first opinion as being, well, not entirely sane. And Pleasure, the hedonic lifestyle, is of paramount importance in all activity in the bulk of relationship-based BDSM groupings. There is no better sign of the difference between the two groupings than these two phrases:
“Serving even when you don’t want to serve,” from the structural group.
“If it isn’t fun, don’t do it,” from the relationship-based group.
The differences between these two approaches can lead to some interesting conflicts when the adherints run into each other. Let me give an example.
A structuralist comes into a situation with the assumption that all subs are expected to behave in a certain manner and any dom worth his funny hat will of course expect his sub to follow the rules and punish her if she does not. Then he encounters a sub who is in a relationship-based grouping and she does something he considers unsublike. He, following what he believes to be a universal procedure, goes to her dom and complains. And the other dom laughs! What has happened is that the first dom has assumed an obligation on the part of the other dom that the second dom does not adhere to, because in a true relationship-based grouping, the sub, at least as she relates to those outside of the relationship, can do no wrong! Remonstrating in such a situation gets nowhere. The other couple simply does not care.
Or at a meeting one sub gets up and talks and talks in great 12 step-like detail about the horrible struggles she is having with being a submissive in her relationship and how hard she is working to be a good submissive and half of the rest of the people in the meeting are trying very hard not to laugh at her because they are wondering why she is going through all that agony over something that really isn’t very important and who cares about her silly problems anyway?
Thus, what you have is one group that feels a need to scrunch all experience into a set of preconceived notions of behavior and attitude and often a need to impose that point of view on others. While on the other hand you have a group that is not at all interested in the concerns of the first group and could not care less what it thinks matters. Given those differing attitudes, it is inevitable that conflict will arise between the two groups and there is nothing that can be done about it except for the followers of both sides to try to realize that something different is going on in the minds of the other people.