Honor...

Honor is an interesting and many faceted concept.  Really, as a single word it encompasses a complex gestalt.  The one thing it was never intended to be is a marketing buzzword.  But so it has become in the BDSM subculture.  Let's be clear... if you're a Dom and you want to get some pussy then you're going to claim you are honorable.  Given human nature that means all doms are perfectly honorable at all times. The subs seem to lap this up like cats at the milk saucer - largely I think because they want that white knight on the huge steed to come and ... well ... beat them black and blue *laughs*.

But here's the rub.  Just like in the rest of society, the vast majority of them have "normal" standards of honor.  Those normal standards in the American culture are pretty low.  What that means is the vast majority of them are lying... roughly 90% I'd say.  Even the ones who actually do have some honor still lie... badly... about their honor.

Consider, for a moment, the high jump.  If you talked to some high jumper and he said he had never, ever, not even once, failed to get over the bar would you think that person was a great high jumper?  I know I wouldn't.  I'd either think they were a liar or else the bar was set at 2 inches.  That's basically the situation in the BDSM subculture.  Every dom who has never lied, never cheated, never behaved in a shabby way, and never failed his own standards of honor is JUST like that high jumper.  One of two things is true.  Either they are lying right now or else their standards of honor are so low as to be useless.

Were I a sub I think I'd ask doms, "Do you lie?"  The right answer is "Yes, sometimes."  I'd ask, "Are you honorable?"  The right answer is, "I try... not always successfully."  Anyone who has not considered their own honor sufficiently to see shades of grey has never considered it at all.  Ponder that.

If you have read anything on the discussion side that sounds "creepy" and that's why you're here I encourage you to skip down to the bottom.  I'm working on providing fuller information so that folks who just read one post on the boards can get the bigger picture.  One more thing before we get into the thick of things.  In this profile I'm talking about my own models for various sorts of D/s.  Do not make the mistake of thinking I apply any value judgements here.  I do not.  What I value is happiness.  The models, dynamics, and participants which produce that happiness are of interest to me.  But I always, always approve of "that which works".  Conversely, I disapprove of "that which fails".  So the guy who has the most badass authority dynamic in the whole world and can't keep a slave for more than a year or two at a time looks like an idiot to me, not a "true master".  So as you're reading down here, keep that in mind please.

And Speaking Of The Bigger Picture

Carol & I are a happily married, deeply in love, mostly vanilla couple living in Victoria, BC.  What you need to know about us more than anything is that we value love and intimacy.  We are very, very close as a couple.  It is love and intimacy which are the foundation of our relationship, not our authority dynamic.  So honestly... really... if you've read anything I've posted and it sounded abusive, predatorial, or twisted in any way then I can guarantee you you've somehow misinterpreted.  I understand how that can happen.  The words don't really convey the picture.  But when anyone sees us in real life what they see is a couple approaching two decades who are STILL dopey in love with each other.

I am for her

That's what it says under my avatar and it is true.  The line, itself, is a reference from Star Trek.  In the show it was an offering but when we say it is a statement of fact.  I am for her.  She is for me.  We are one.  (see what I mean about intimacy?)  Yes, even though I am the dominant party in this marriage, I am her's.  I don't belong to her in the BDSM sense of property.  But I have, in fact, dedicated my entire life to making her life as happy, fulfilled, and complete as it can be.  It is not a mis-statement to say that I live to serve her just as she lives to serve me.  Really, the only difference between us is that I'm the one who gets to sort out how all that serving is going to happen.  But this is not one of those one-directional M/s relationships that is all about the master.  For Carol and I, it is all about US.  For each of us individually it is much more about our partner than ourselves.

About our dynamic

We are a [mostly] vanilla couple who engage in an absolute obedience authority dynamic -- some might call it "head of household" and others M/s, TPE, or IE.  By absolute obedience what I mean is that she just obeys... period... no disobedience and no punishment.  There are no limits or whatnot... we don't get the point.  There's just me... doing my best to lead our marriage and her following that lead.  It's all rather boring and mundane -- well -- except for how happy it makes us.  It is not very "BDSM-ey" for lack of a better word.  It just doesn't have that flavor of "Selfish, demanding male taking his pleasure from his cringing slave girl".  I'm not selfish.  She doesn't cringe.  It's all much more of a team effort than that.  There's a definite lack of whips & chains, dog food bowls and the like in our marriage.

What do I mean by "socially dominant"?

BDSM people typically refer to "sexual dominance".  Beyond topping I honestly don't know what that is.  Then there is this thing I call "relational dominance".  That is to say, someone who is dominant within the context of their relationship.  When I say "social dominance" what I'm talking about is "the whole world".  To me, being "dominant" means that I am in control of as much of the world around me as I want to be.  I do not see myself as "powerless" in pretty much any situation.  I'm one of those "natural leader" types and have the track record to back it up.  I also understand that there are LOADS of folks more dominant than me.  For instance, I'm not the President.  In other words, when looking at "social dominance" you can't just have this boolean "dominant or not" view.  It's deeply hierarchical, very fluid, and terribly complex.  The most I can say is that "In way more situations than not, I am the one who is in control of my world in my own mind."

What's important here is to remember that I do not differentiate the kind of dominance that happens between myself and Carol and the kind that happens in the court room or the board room or wherever else.  Now.. just to provide a visual... I want you to imagine two bull seals determining their dominance during mating season.  You'll note that this is not a pretty or romantic process and neither asked for the other's consent in order to engage.  It's a battle and to the victor go the spoils.  That is the dominance I'm talking about.  That is exactly what Carol gets from me also... although it gets greatly buffered and modified and channeled by that little four letter word, Love.

If you've read a posting on "consent"

You will hear me say that I don't understand what "consent" has to do with dominance.  That does NOT mean that I think it's an OK thing to run around forcing women to blow me.  Consent has a lot to do with ethics.  But when I talk about "dominance" what I'm talking about is "social dominance" (see above).  And consent is not a required feature of it.  It's not even required ethically in all situations.  I've gotten into a fair number of power struggles throughout my career and never once did I ask the other person if it was OK if I usurped their authority.  I just did it... if I was able.  I never had anyone else ask me that question when they were trying to usurp my authority.

There's also another way that "consent" can become problematic.

Dominance by Agreement vs. Social Dominance