Copyright © 1986-2003 Christine and David Stevenson

Why Dom - Sub?

A discussion by David Stevenson.

My wife and I are both in our early forties and we have been together now for over seventeen years. I first introduced Christine to domination and submission soon after we met. The vast majority of Fem-Dom couples we have met are like ourselves. A submissive, who wants his wife or girlfriend to play act the role of dominant for his pleasure.

Like ourselves, they found that what they wanted was to find ways to make their play acting more real, more (semi) permanent. Indeed to find ways to integrate it into their everyday lives. Not just for a few hours in a nightclub.

In my ten years experience of working, and in over twenty of playing, in the area of domination and submission I have never met a genuine slave. Nor have I met a real life Master or Mistress. By that I mean that everyone was playing consensual role play games.

I am glad that it is so, for without consent it would not be loving sex-play.

Very few of the dominant ladies I have encountered have been play acting the role of sadist for money. By far the majority have been spouses play acting to please their husbands and lovers.

Even amongst those dominant ladies who do it for the money I have rarely met a lady who did not obviously care for her subjects. (The same may not be true of all of their submissive clients).

In one or two exceptional cases, these games have been developed with assumed consent. By that I mean with little discussion of respective fantasies. Thus allowing the participants the beauty of believing their games are real life.

However by far the vast majority have to do it the hard way, by talking it out until some mutual understanding is reached.

One hears of men who have visited prostitutes and have had disappointing experiences. I have never visited a prostitute myself and have been fortunate in only meeting women who care for their men in the S&M scene. Although, despite caring, they rarely understand them.

The dominant men I have met have all been, almost without exception in my opinion, play acting sadist to please their spouses. Many of those men have found genuine excitement for themselves in that role, but a large part of their motivation was to please their spouses.

This does not mean that there are not genuine Masters (or even Mistresses) out there. It is just that they have not opted to visit us, and have not been encountered by us at other places we have frequented.

A lot of the men and women I have met genuinely enjoyed the role play games. Many of them gain enjoyment in both the roles of dominant and submissive. By far the majority of people seem to prefer the submissive role.

I evince these facts as evidence that Sado Masochism is far from what people understand by the word Sadism. I have not encountered any sadists abusing their victims, only submissives demanding more abuse from their partners. There probably are real sadists around. But I do not think you'll find them primarily in the sex industries or in the much publicised Sado-Maso bars and clubs. There are real slaves in this world, but equally they are not primarily in the 'first world' sex industries.

Dealing with real sadists and the presence of genuine slavery is a geo-political issue which is not the function of this article or our computer programme.

There are stories of women being forced to work in the sex industry; undoubtedly this happens in parts of America, Asia, and elsewhere.

By far the majority of women who are prostitutes or who make erotic films do so out of choice. Where force is involved it is morally wrong and should be tackled by our laws and government.

Where the government should stay out and leave people alone is when they are freely indulging in acts that can harm no-one but themselves and a consenting partner. In the majority of cases those games we play do us the world of good. Besides, 'Whose life is it anyway?'

In the program, most of the ideas referred to are with the female in the dominant role. Like most male submissive I have switchable fantasies. Without wanting to offend any fem-dom purists I have where it excites me included some of those fantasies. But I have generally shown how even these fantasies can be integrated into a genuine Fem-Dom relationship.

But Why dom-sub?

I was getting there!

The latest research on mating in the human species shows that the original design (or conception?) of men and women was for a four to five year mating and partnering cycle. Whilst many relationships last much longer, the statistics show a marked tendency for relationships to break up in four to five years.

In an uncivilised community of humans, child rearing is best served by keeping partners together for the first five years of a child's life. Genetic diversity and the success of the species is best achieved by moving on to new partnerships.

The sex is always best in those early years as a means of keeping you together. The process of falling in love and sexual attraction is at once bio-chemical and psychological. Those chemical and psychological relationships are even as I write are being researched in much greater detail than previously.

Some facts are already common knowledge. Our body language and the scents we give off are prime movers in the attraction process. The psychological thrill of pairing with a new partner is immense compared with boredom sometimes encountered in a stale relationship. Some of these processes are controlled by changes in hormonal state, and others could loosely be described as the rut setting in.

After those first four to five years both men and women cast their eye on the field to see if they can do any better for themselves or their children. Sexual attraction can encourage the male into new relationships; Paradoxically there can be an advantage for the Mother and her children in changing to a more successful partner.

This process is subconscious in many but may become consciously acknowledged. "My wife doesn't understand me." "He doesn't seem interested in me any more." The seven year itch may well be the result of two or three years of no longer being on target with each other. It is acknowledged by statisticians that if you get past those first seven years your statistical chances of staying together increase dramatically. Indeed you'll probably be together for the rest of your lives.

Get on with it!

O.K. Why dom sub?

For many couples, staying together is a process of becoming more alike. Adapting and moulding yourself body and soul to the other. For some this is simpler, because their needs are similar. For others with diverse sexual needs the process takes work and commitment. The dom-sub individual often has a need for sex that is greater than the supply of available partners in his early life. In some women their needs were perceived as socially unacceptable.

In the male this creates situations where he associates sexual attraction with the chase, with success and failure. With women it can lead to associations of sex with guilt, and therefore punishment. To some degree these factors are interchangeable across the sexes.

As I am a man, I can only discuss with certainty the development of a male. The process of attraction already mentioned becomes part of his psycho-sexual make up. The rejection he encounters when partners are not available has to be rationalised, adapted to, and perhaps even incorporated into his sexual needs. The process is slow and developmental.

In my own case I believe that I gradually began to enjoy (or at least relate to) being rejected by women. I began to find that being attracted to them; the chase, was almost as much fun as having them; arrival. There is a well known expression which escapes me which acknowledges that the journey is as at least as much fun as the destination. I think the expression goes something like this; 'It is better to travel in hope, than be disappointed by your destination.'

In order to maintain the chase it is necessary either to guarantee that one doesn't arrive, or chase someone else soon afterwards. Playing the field.

Again in my own case I feel that there was the psychological need to pair bond, for emotional security perhaps. So chasing different partners was not the ideal. The ideal, not consciously recognised at the beginning, would be a partner that satisfied all the criteria of the urge to pair, but at the same time managed to keep me on sexual tenterhooks and maintain the chase.

It is common in many parts of the world for a man to keep a Mistress for the latter and a wife for the former. In our 'Western' societies this is frowned upon.

Perhaps I am unusual in having early sexual experiences and sensations, but I think not. My earliest memories of sexual arousal rushing through my body were as a small boy of six or seven. Without an erection, but with the same effect on the mind and the same chemicals surging around the body. Lust is a bio- chemical and physical sensation that is accompanied by thoughts and awareness. The two blend in early years and help create and mould the sexual make up of the individual.

Throughout childhood and teenage years, the criteria which identified women as satisfying my needs were experienced and perhaps subconsciously integrated into my psyche. The unavailable schoolteacher made one 'fall in love' whilst still being a disciplinarian. The girl who wouldn't date with me gave one that un-requited love sensation, while I could label her as a stuck up bitch.

The girl one wrestled with as a small boy sits on one's chest and the scent of woman is encountered, arousal and submission combine. A boy plays with his older sister on a playground swing, he is seated and she is standing astride him, working the swing into motion. His head goes under her skirt and he feels excited and aroused. Thereafter he wants to play on the swing with his sister every day.

Perhaps even before the child could walk, he was crawling around the floor in the presence of women. Perhaps the scent of an aunt's feet in nylon and leather shoes provided a similar chemical rush. Certainly many people report the profound effect that the smell of leather has on them. Some equate it with arousal, others with a deep sense of comfort and security. Is this because of a similarity to the scent of human pheromones?

Do male pheromones make women feel secure and provided for? I have certainly known more than one woman who liked to put on a man's dressing gown when their own was equally available.

Equally certain is that the scent of a woman arouses many, if not all, men. There are famous research experiments with pheromones; one recently reported involved spraying seats in a theatre with male and female pheromones. All the men who entered sat in the area sprayed with female pheromones.

I have not even discussed sight and sound. The sight of a woman in high heels, the sound of the steel tips clicking on a floor. The power of colours, black and white contrasts at stocking top and knickers. Red and black contrasting and summoning subconscious power messages. There is much research in these areas, suffice it to say that they all have their effect on the growing male.

By the time I was ten I was actively encouraging a girl to tie me to a tree, hoping that she would undo my trousers; seeking her control, wanting to be humiliated by such an act. Even at that age, one knew that to get a girl to put her hand in your trousers, one would need to offer some incentive. Even at that age one offered the female power in exchange for sexual contact.

By the time I was twelve I knew that images of a young woman, perhaps a mini-skirted schoolteacher, spanking a boy's (my?) bare bottom excited me. By the time I was fourteen I had, in a love affair, tried all conventional variations in sex. Yet still I had not found the levels of excitement my very soul seemed to seek.

By the time I was seventeen I liked to pet with a woman for long periods without actually coming to a conclusion. At least not immediately. Perhaps it is also true that prolonged petting is a safer way to be aroused when one is young and inexperienced. But it was not safety I was seeking, more likely danger or prolonged excitement.

I am certain that in prolonged arousal one gets an equivalent chemical or Endorphin rush to that experience on the playground swing as a boy.

Certainly I am not the only man to acknowledge a sense of let down after climax. It is commonly discussed in the pages of men's magazines. I believe it is a let down similar to that experienced in drug addictions. The body experiences the high of an Endorphin rush, followed by the low of normality or post Endorphin let- down.

Endorphins are released in the brain during attraction and arousal, perhaps in response to the sight and scent. I have found that the let down at the end of sex is greater in lovemaking than it is in masturbation. Perhaps that is obvious since the arousal is probably greater. But even in the most intense fantasising and masturbatory session lasting hours; the let down is less at the point of climax, than it is in lovemaking lasting half an hour or so.

Perhaps without the scent of a partner the chemicals released in the brain are not so intense, and the 'down' not so great. If this is so then those men who purchase worn female knickers may have good reason; they may be enhancing their masturbatory sensations to a level similar to that of a sexual encounter with a female.

Every man fears failure and there is certainly no chance of failure if one doesn't attempt intercourse. How many men lose their erection their first time with a woman?

But despite being a normal male, overcoming fear of failure with each new partner, it was not quite enough. One needed a touch of cruelty in a woman to maintain my interest and desire. To justify the prolongation of the act by giving a reason for it.

I believe that the primary reason for not attempting intercourse in my own case was the knowledge that to do so brought about the 'down' that much quicker. To continue 'petting' maintained the state of 'high'.

There is recent evidence and research into Endorphins, chemicals in the brain, which may also shed some light on the desire to prolong the feelings of arousal. Some of you may have read that Michael Douglas checked himself into a love addiction clinic; the theory is that being addicted to falling in love is largely bio- chemical.

Poets have through the ages written love poetry describing the almost painful sensation, the longing, the desire to worship, that accompanies falling in love. Many of you will know that feeling, and may call it infatuation.

Take a break and read one of my poems if you like, you might find it relevant.

Copyright © 1986-2007 Christine and David Stevenson