![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sabinelagrandeSo I was annoyed at tumblr a little, and then a thousand words later, I had this rant/meta about D/s and how everyone is Doing It Wrong.
So, here we go talking about who's more domly and who's more subby again, and here's what bothers the shit out of me: nobody is inherently dominant, and nobody is inherently submissive.
I'm here to talk about Charles and Erik, but I'm not at all saying that this is an XMFC problem. It's a problem with fandom at large, and very unfortunately, it's also a real life problem. Please know that with this post, I am not calling out anyone in specific; if I am doing anything combative at all (which is not my intention), I am calling everybody out.
All of us are made up of a lot of traits. Some of these traits lend themselves more towards taking on a dominant role. Some lend themselves more towards taking on a submissive role. Some of them can make a case for either side. It's as simple as that. Nobody was endowed by the God of BDSM* with domliness or subbiness.
When you choose to represent a character as submissive or dominant, you are not fulfilling the master plan of the God of BDSM. You are making an authorial choice to impose a role on a character based on the traits that you feel are most important to their characterization as you interpret it; your choice is not the only valid choice.
I think the biggest problem is that people think that there is dom and sub, no questions, black and white. That's not how it goes, not at all. There are many ways to dom and there are many ways to sub. People are drawn to it for different reasons, and as long as they don't lead to physical or mental harm, all those reasons are valid.
So let's look at Charles and Erik for a second, okay? Because there are about a billionty pairs/groups of characters one could make this analysis for, but this one is the one bothering me right now, for the sheer amount of "Well, obviously," going around at present.
Lots of reasons for Erik to sub (I have fallen in with the people who mostly like dom!Charles/sub!Erik, so if I am speeding through this first part, that is why). Erik is tired, and it would be nice to just let somebody else handle things for a while. Erik is a brat and needs someone to smack him down. Erik wants to do something worthwhile and good for once, something to help, and so and and so forth.
Lots of reasons for Charles to dom. Charles is no stranger to casually controlling people, which is a very domly thing to do, in my experience. Charles is a mentor type, which fits very well into domming, because they're often not dissimilar. Sometimes it's just hot for a little dude to take control of a bigger dude.
On the opposite side, Erik has domly things about him, because there are lots of ways to dom. Some people like predator/prey dynamics: there's an idea for early-canon Erik, being unable to get out of that mindset, good chance for some angst there. Some people like to be protectors; that seems like it would be up Erik's street. Hell, people like to be dominant and protect their subs, and some people have a guard dog mentality, submissives protecting their dominants. Some people just like to dominate people who are physically smaller than them, for no other reason than that they get off on being intimidating.
And then, there are lots of reasons for Charles to sub. The main submissve trait that I see in Charles that appeals to me is his wild streak. Some people like to get reined in, having someone stop them from doing whatever- some exciting shame kink there, too, of the "You filthy slut, I'll teach you not to provoke me" variety. Then there's the idea that Charles doesn't have any friends aside from Raven (and later, Erik). At least in one's little romantic heart of hearts, having a dom means that you'll never be alone. There's a point for both of them- they're both very lonely people who very clearly want to tie themselves together (in a romantic sense or no- and I will remind you that D/s never has to be sexual or romantic in nature).
So see there? There's plenty of room to argue the toss. This because of the fact that, in the real world**, nobody is born submissive or born dominant. That is some straight up, dumbass, first-day-on-collarme bullshit. Submissive and dominant are roles we take on and/or give to our characters. They are only as rigid as we make them. There is absolutely no telling if someone prefers to dom or sub just looking at them, or even looking at their behavior; you need to look inside at their motivations.
And for the love of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints, dominant and top do not mean the same thing***, nor do submissive and bottom. Dominants bottom and subs top and switches just have a good ole time. And, much more important than even that, dominants are not winners, and submissives are not losers. D/s is not a zero-sum game. The winners are the people who get what they need and have a good time.
And if you read through all of that, I hope you'll not attack me with pitchforks.
*The Lord Gor Almighty? *shot for pun*
**I have Thoughts about this in D/s AU as well. But D/s AU was mostly what I thought about during long, long seminars while I was doing my coursework, so there's a lot of BUT ROLE AND BODY POLITICS AND TRANS* ISSUES THOUGH, YOU GUYS lurking in my brain, only a little of which I have played with.
***We will, however, accept the labeling of dom/mes as "tops" in D/s AU because, y'know, can't use a gender-marked term in an AU where gender divisions aren't marked.
This entry was automagically crossposted from http://sabinetzin.dreamwidth.org/403985.html.
comments over there.
So, here we go talking about who's more domly and who's more subby again, and here's what bothers the shit out of me: nobody is inherently dominant, and nobody is inherently submissive.
I'm here to talk about Charles and Erik, but I'm not at all saying that this is an XMFC problem. It's a problem with fandom at large, and very unfortunately, it's also a real life problem. Please know that with this post, I am not calling out anyone in specific; if I am doing anything combative at all (which is not my intention), I am calling everybody out.
All of us are made up of a lot of traits. Some of these traits lend themselves more towards taking on a dominant role. Some lend themselves more towards taking on a submissive role. Some of them can make a case for either side. It's as simple as that. Nobody was endowed by the God of BDSM* with domliness or subbiness.
When you choose to represent a character as submissive or dominant, you are not fulfilling the master plan of the God of BDSM. You are making an authorial choice to impose a role on a character based on the traits that you feel are most important to their characterization as you interpret it; your choice is not the only valid choice.
I think the biggest problem is that people think that there is dom and sub, no questions, black and white. That's not how it goes, not at all. There are many ways to dom and there are many ways to sub. People are drawn to it for different reasons, and as long as they don't lead to physical or mental harm, all those reasons are valid.
So let's look at Charles and Erik for a second, okay? Because there are about a billionty pairs/groups of characters one could make this analysis for, but this one is the one bothering me right now, for the sheer amount of "Well, obviously," going around at present.
Lots of reasons for Erik to sub (I have fallen in with the people who mostly like dom!Charles/sub!Erik, so if I am speeding through this first part, that is why). Erik is tired, and it would be nice to just let somebody else handle things for a while. Erik is a brat and needs someone to smack him down. Erik wants to do something worthwhile and good for once, something to help, and so and and so forth.
Lots of reasons for Charles to dom. Charles is no stranger to casually controlling people, which is a very domly thing to do, in my experience. Charles is a mentor type, which fits very well into domming, because they're often not dissimilar. Sometimes it's just hot for a little dude to take control of a bigger dude.
On the opposite side, Erik has domly things about him, because there are lots of ways to dom. Some people like predator/prey dynamics: there's an idea for early-canon Erik, being unable to get out of that mindset, good chance for some angst there. Some people like to be protectors; that seems like it would be up Erik's street. Hell, people like to be dominant and protect their subs, and some people have a guard dog mentality, submissives protecting their dominants. Some people just like to dominate people who are physically smaller than them, for no other reason than that they get off on being intimidating.
And then, there are lots of reasons for Charles to sub. The main submissve trait that I see in Charles that appeals to me is his wild streak. Some people like to get reined in, having someone stop them from doing whatever- some exciting shame kink there, too, of the "You filthy slut, I'll teach you not to provoke me" variety. Then there's the idea that Charles doesn't have any friends aside from Raven (and later, Erik). At least in one's little romantic heart of hearts, having a dom means that you'll never be alone. There's a point for both of them- they're both very lonely people who very clearly want to tie themselves together (in a romantic sense or no- and I will remind you that D/s never has to be sexual or romantic in nature).
So see there? There's plenty of room to argue the toss. This because of the fact that, in the real world**, nobody is born submissive or born dominant. That is some straight up, dumbass, first-day-on-collarme bullshit. Submissive and dominant are roles we take on and/or give to our characters. They are only as rigid as we make them. There is absolutely no telling if someone prefers to dom or sub just looking at them, or even looking at their behavior; you need to look inside at their motivations.
And for the love of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints, dominant and top do not mean the same thing***, nor do submissive and bottom. Dominants bottom and subs top and switches just have a good ole time. And, much more important than even that, dominants are not winners, and submissives are not losers. D/s is not a zero-sum game. The winners are the people who get what they need and have a good time.
And if you read through all of that, I hope you'll not attack me with pitchforks.
*The Lord Gor Almighty? *shot for pun*
**I have Thoughts about this in D/s AU as well. But D/s AU was mostly what I thought about during long, long seminars while I was doing my coursework, so there's a lot of BUT ROLE AND BODY POLITICS AND TRANS* ISSUES THOUGH, YOU GUYS lurking in my brain, only a little of which I have played with.
***We will, however, accept the labeling of dom/mes as "tops" in D/s AU because, y'know, can't use a gender-marked term in an AU where gender divisions aren't marked.
This entry was automagically crossposted from http://sabinetzin.dreamwidth.org/403985.html.
