The Search for Her and for Understanding Continues

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Underlying Kink

I once interviewed a famous yoga instructor and one of my questions had to do with the connection between the often simple, physical poses or asanas, and the emotional change that came out of assuming them. My example in the question was the premise that if one was depressed, they could exercise, or in this case do yoga and it could have a positive effect on mood. He talked about the power of various positions and movements and how the energy that is connected to our emotions works its way through our bodies in the poses. He talked about how often we reflect physically what we are feeling emotionally. For example, when depressed, we rarely walk with good upright posture and chest out, but usually we are closed, slightly hunched over with shoulders pinching inward. The reverse is true when we are feeling happy, strong, confident and carefree.

Of course the poses in yoga are deliberate and conscious and different poses bring about different physical, emotional and psychological results. That’s one reason that there are different yoga programs and poses for different times of the day and for different purposes, which aid us in everything from relaxation to energy.

I think that in a similar, and even deeper way, some of these dynamics are at play within the context of various “kinky” acts in the D/s dynamic – they are expressing complex subconscious feelings that are potentially quite profound. For example, women who are confident and commanding often carry themselves in a certain way. BDSM images often show women – often ample – in power poses with hands on hips and legs slightly spread. That stance can imply something bold and daring. Men, sometimes look exaggeratedly cowering by comparison. Other images suggest woman as feminine and striking, sometime nurturing yet dominant in poses standing over a man who is kneeling in front of her as she reaches down to caress his head or pull him into her, close to her. The men in some of these images are sometimes very masculine, muscular figures that allude to physical strength, but yet his position beneath her with head bowed down close to the life source, or looking up into her eyes, implies that he is getting his power from her.

It makes me wonder if underlying a true D/s dynamic there isn’t ultimately an implied acknowledgement that regardless of what a man is or achieves there is a maternal debt that will never be repaid. These are perhaps underlying, “meta” messages that may never rise above the subconscious. They are tied to the dichotomy of the female as both mother and lover. This isn’t to suggest anything overtly oedipal; after all, most of us have no literal sexual desire for our own mother! But if we were to try to break down and verbalize the underlying dynamics of what is going on in the “kink” -- where the woman stands over the man and they look into each other’s eyes and she sees the man get down and worship her literally at her feet -- there is, for some of us, a highly sexually arousing event that involves the, perhaps unspoken, covenant that he needs to be seen as succumbing to the ego surrender associated with accepting the fact that the dominant woman provides the potential of the guidance, nurturance and love that he got from his own mother, but now fully realized as an adult, including non-maternal, sexual implications and possibilities.

Males are pulled away from mothers in order to pursue the construct of the predominant male archetype. This pursuit is the antithesis of that relationship with the first woman. I think that part of the great turn on of finding a woman who is equally turned on and enthusiastic about her part in this particular kink, with its underlying dynamic, is that it allows the submissive man to let go of that archetype and acknowledge how much he longs for that which is feminine, which was withdrawn from most of us at such an early age.

As consenting, sexual adults these “meta” messages play themselves out in a way, which unlike as children with our mothers, where we explore this interdependence and the need for closeness with a woman in an erotic, sensual and sexual way. There is also eroticism and arousal in the privacy of having her, our dominant woman, know of this desire, which to the masculine, outside world is perceived as a weakness. In this way the submissive man is going into the realm of some of the greatest taboos within our sexual society. After all, the idea of that maternal nurturance, love and tenderness is relegated to a brief period of near total dependence associated with pre-birth, infancy and the early parts of childhood. It is outside the mother’s realm that the male learns everything from aggressiveness and the skills needed to compete, to the need to hide anything within himself that shows acknowledgement of dependence and vulnerability, which are traditionally seen as feminine traits and thus considered weaknesses in the patriarchal world. For reasons I am not clear on, there is also a turn on in the embarrassment we feel in revealing this need within ourselves, to a woman. Implicit in our vulnerability is acknowledgement of the woman’s power over us, which at once can be sexual, sensual and nurturing. This acknowledgement -- this covenant that outlines this intimacy and interdependence -- is the antithesis of what traditional masculine imagery does with regard to women: everything from the patronizing of the woman’s place to the assumed subservience that is still a part of the thinking of more traditional men, to in the worst cases, rape and violence against women.

To me it is something as simple as this “on my knees” kink, when done with the right woman within the context of a trusting, loving relationship, that works through many complex issues. And in spite of the unpopularity of acknowledging the sexual turn on, it is in fact that turn on that attracts many of us to want to make this expression.

Embarrassment Versus Humiliation

I have been trying to understand the appeal of humiliation. It is part of many D/s relationships and online D/s and BDSM is full of stories of various types of humiliation, from "scenes," to humiliation as part of an ongoing lifestyle dynamic.

I recently found a humiliation scene from a Youtube video on a blog which shows a man wearing a little girl's dress, without makeup or wig, going into McDonalds and sitting down in eyeshot of a table of vanilla women who we see stare and snicker at him. Then we see a hamburger on the floor, a high heeled foot step on it, squishing it into the dirty floor, and then the man gets down on all fours and proceeds to eat it. As this is happening the camera cuts to the group of women who are now leaving and stop to watch and laugh at him on their way out. Obviously I don't know if this is real, staged or what, but it is a perfect demonstration of the humiliation often present in D/s relationships.

There is tons of art depicting D/s acts of humiliation, more often than not, with a female "D" and a male "s." The men are not always emasculated, but almost always shown as the subject of exposure, ridicule, and humiliation, often either as pets, on display for others, or looking like they are being forcibly raped or made to perform various sexual acts. The women are often overweight, at times vixens, often pictured as cold or callous, often made to appear nonchalant regarding say, the naked man they have standing in attendance with a leash around his penis as she casually chats with an equally nonchalant girl friend. The message it sends is that men don't matter. That they exist for service and humiliation and that they are interchangeable and as disposable as batteries...or dildos. It also sends the message that dominant women are self centered, uncaring, at times callous to the point of cruelty. To me it isn't a pretty picture for either, nor is it the poster image for S-D/s relationships.

I have no idea what the turn on is in this. I don't know why people, in this case men, would be excited by this level of humiliation or what women find admirable or enjoyable about humiliating them or the way they themselves come across in this regard. I do however accept that for some, possibly many, there is something in it for them. I wonder about the health of it though.

I have always been of the opinion that whenever people engage in what is generally considered unhealthy activities, there is something in it for them. Whether it is a woman who stays in a relationship that is physically, mentally, emotionally or sexually abusive, to people who would eagerly submit to all manner of degradation, the "victim" or object of the abuse is clearly getting something out of it, perhaps as much or more than their tormentor/perpetrator. Although there are those who would no doubt disagree with me and defend what I might consider unhealthy relationships and dynamics as being perfectly acceptable, I have a hard time buying into it. I think that there is something else that healthy people can engage in that doesn't degrade at a level of self esteem debasement.

There is embarrassment. At first thought you might think that humiliation and embarrassment are the same, but I would argue that there are several differences. Humiliation may be embarrassing, but embarrassment isn't always humiliating. For one thing a person can be embarrassed on their own without the involvement of others. For example, tripping over one's own feet may be embarrassing, but it isn't humiliating in any kind of degrading way. A story of an embarrassing moment might be told to a group of friends, but it doesn't call the person's core self image or character into question necessarily. Humiliation, especially in the D/s and BDSM sense, is often about a conscious and deliberate act of saying things, doing things and demanding things of the submissive or slave that are specifically made to humiliate them, and may indeed cut to a core level. It often involves or requires exhibitionism and exposure to others to bring about humiliation. The degradation may reinforce existing beliefs in ones lack of value or self worth or worse. There is always the possibility that the object is somehow emotionally healthy and the humiliation and degradation is not doing any kind of emotional or psychological damage, but in such cases I would wonder what the appeal would be. In the mental health arena people define mental health problems as anything that gets in the way of leading a productive, happy life or conversely, anything that impedes productivity and happiness is unhealthy. Based on this, in the case of humiliation and degradation, only the individual can know or say for sure as to whether or not it is healthy.

Embarrassment on the other hand has a much healthier potential. In her book, Sexual Power for Women, Georgeann Cross goes into depth regarding why embarrassment of her lovers works as such a compelling aphrodisiac. Although I am not necessarily endorsing all of her methods, the overall value and power of what she calls the Loop is intriguing as a way for women to take control of their relationship through sexuality which creates deep intimacy and passion.

Many "dommes" are dismissive of men who only want to submit sexually. To them sexual submission on the part of men is always self-centered, about their (the submissives) needs, and something to be regarded as sexual kink rather than true submission. I am not sure whether it is those domme's lack of imagination or a lack of genuine enjoyment of sex that is responsible for their response, but I would propose that when a man is interested in submitting sexually - whether it is a kink, or "bottoming from the top," as is so often the accusation - to ignore this and thus his needs is to ignore a great mutual opportunity for both to get their needs met both in bed and out.

In Cross's book embarrassment is the key element in turning otherwise vanilla lovers into her love or sex slaves. Her point of view is refreshingly compassionate and based in the understanding that she wants the best for both her and her partner and that she, along with women in general, are best suited to know what is best for their men and their relationship. By creating a power dynamic where both she and her partner are aware of the fact that he is turned on by his own sexual embarrassment, which she is controlling and creating, she has taken ownership of the relationship. In a pure sense, a love or sex slave isn't the same as a submissive, but with her prescription you have the potential for the best of both worlds and all without potentially unhealthy humiliation. And she has the world's simplest barometer of success, the one thing a man can't fake or dismiss - his arousal. Barring medical ED problems of course, she knows at a glance if her tactics are working. He is embarrassed by such obvious and uncontrollable exposure and as a result of that embarrassment, he becomes even more sexually aroused.

Unless the domme is simply not interested in sex, in which case she is looking for a non sexual submissive to serve her in other ways, she has sexual control which is the key to virtually any kind of control she wants. In some ways it goes back to an old feminist era philosophy of sex as weapon or bargaining chip, but in this case it lacks the potential antagonism that withholding implies. She has gotten the man's "buy in" to be her sex or love slave and part of that understanding is that she is in control. Since she has proven that he is turned on by his own embarrassment, which she instigates and perpetuates and thus for which she is required, her control can extend to areas outside of bed. The result: everyone gets their needs met. No one feels humiliated. Both are appreciated and needed for their equal value in the power exchange of the relationship and there is an ongoing, foolproof, simple way to see that the system is still working.

Healthy sexual embarrassment as opposed to potentially unhealthy humiliation and degradation. The foundation for another kind of dynamic, which for those of us interested in S-D/s, may be a perfect manifesto for fulfillment.

Feminization of Submissive Men

Feminization of submissive men is a common theme in D/s and BDSM. It is heavily portrayed in femdomme and BDSM art, pornography and erotica. One of the recurring themes is the man who has his traditional male sexuality feminized out of him. In contrast the domme/woman, whether she is overtly interested in sex or not, maintains not only an image of virile sexuality, her sexuality contains the implication of dominance that the man lacks, which is traditionally masculine.


Male feminization often has a decidedly non-sexual suggestion to it. A common image is men dressed as maids, doing housework, and portrayed as being forced into a caricature of the traditional woman's role. Even within a sexual context, since the feminized man is seen as non-sexual in a male sense, this aspect of him has been marginalized or neutered away. He is systematically reduced to a eunuch, then the cuckold, forced to sit by and watch, often dressed in exaggerated "girl" costumes, commonly portrayed with a small penis which is controlled and negated in some chaste device, while well endowed, studly, masculine men have sex with the sub's domme, ironically with her often being dominated by her commanding male lover. The two (or more) of them flaunt their sexual activities, drawing painful contrast to the sub's impotence. The focus of humiliation and ridicule by a woman, groups of women, and often men is central in these scenes and fantasies. The sub's sexual participation is often reduced to her domme and lover's post coital "cleanup." The sub is often expected to take the passive or receiving female role in a homosexual encounter with the domme's lover - her "real" man. Attendant to these images are often masculine women and cruel vixens who the sub can now only covet without consummation with the ultimate message being that the domme disregards them sexually and dismisses them as men.

Personally I have never been attracted to feminization or any of the attendant scenes or roles, however I accept that they obviously have appeal to some, perhaps many. Normally I would be happy to view it as harmless fun between consenting adults, which within the context of fantasies and sexual play, it is.

The problem is that this image is so prolific in the D/s and BDSM world that it unfairly extends to many of us who want, or are open to, a submissive role with women but are not interested in, and in some cases flat out repulsed by, these characterizations. Outwardly and inwardly we become guilty by association. In the mainstream media, the vanilla world and even among many in the D/s and BDSM world, the feminization of men is arguably the most ridiculed and loathed image we have. Those among us who seek a S-D/s relationship clearly don't want to be associated with it. It can create guilt, confusion and self loathing for even having such desires that so many, often including those who fantasize about them, see as repulsive.

In the broader sense this image of feminization is a problem in society as a whole and a continued struggle in the post feminist age. In our still patriarchal society that which is feminine is still regarded as weak; that which is masculine is still regarded as strong. As long as these attributes stay within the confines of our collective expectations there isn't a problem, or an overt problem, but once they stray, there is a huge problem. As a side note I would suggest that it is especially timely right now as we are headed for presidential elections. The fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman is among the issues that challenge her. I won't turn this overtly political since that would take our attention elsewhere, but I'll sum it up by saying that as a society we pay token lip service to women. We put them on pedestals as long as they exhibit the attributes that we consider in line with our images of femininity. These include the ideals of physical beauty, virginity and loyalty, respect, obedience, nurturance, selflessness, and a certain feminine strength that is less physical and more focused on duty to home and family. Once women divert from this image, we have problems. We still have the age old tension and conflict between the admired mother and the reviled yet desired whore. We still have a sense of the wife/woman as possession.

Two deviations threaten the model. One shatters the illusion of the female image we have created and has been knocking women off that pedestal for years, sadly at times to devastating ends. The other deviation is even more threatening in a patriarchal society:

One is when the woman takes on the attributes of men; the other is when the attributes we have placed on women are present in men.

We hate weakness outside of its feminine context. Thus the most loathsome thing in our society in this regard is feminization of the masculine, of men. It speaks to the assumed weakness of the feminine and underlying fear we have as a collective consciousness.

For example, in spite of whatever progress has been made in pop culture and society, homophobia is still a big problem. Since as a society we pay token homage to the mother, as long as she fits the construct we have created, the underlying message is that as men, we can only go so far to affiliate ourselves with women in this context. From the "mamma's boy," to "the sissy," to the "henpecked, pussy whipped, husband," we have nothing but disdain for such men. We draw a straight line to the conclusion that men who don't take on the traditional role with women - that of boss, the physically stronger, the decision maker, bread winner, leader, provider, and ultimate authority - are weak, thus feminine, thus hated and ridiculed, possibly feared underneath it all.

The flip side of this is the attachment of masculine traits to dominance in women. Within the femdomme and BDSM culture the masculine woman is the antithesis of the feminized man. Why is it that a woman has to take on the attributes of men to convey her wisdom, power, command, and dominance? I would suggest that it does us all an equal disservice. Although the image to the vanilla world of such women may be less reviled than that of feminized men, it is none the less disliked, ridiculed and often hated. When isn't their a rumor mill about any powerful woman that she is either "a bitch," or "a lesbian," or she "hates men?" In many ways it is an even worse trap for them. The options are to become this kind of woman, or they remain or reveal themselves to be weak and unable to lead when the first signs of vulnerability arise. A recent online article, the source of which I apologize for having forgotten, told of survey results that show that within the public and political world, we are more accepting of powerful men who shed the occasional tear than we are with women making similar public displays. It is now finally seen as compassion when a man shows some kind of public emotion and we can empathize with him and admire him, yet when women do it it is either seen as weak or insincere manipulation. On the one hand this is good news for men (as long as their display is minimal and rare) but a step backwards for women.

The larger point is that we still think in base literal and symbolic terms of physical strength as the ultimate guiding principle of power. Of course it is intellectualized and displayed nationalistically in our strength as a nation in times of war; it can be synthesized into a symbolic strength represented by money, power and position, but they are all extensions of our fear, at times obfuscated as admiration and ultimately our submission to one more powerful than we...and we still expect it to be a masculine image. Does the threat of violence keep everyone in line? If so, how do we break this image and cycle so that we might emerge to create a society that isn't based on response to the ever present threat of violence, but one that is based in wisdom and compassion? Whenever our decisions are made and their subsequent actions taken based on greed, self interest, unbridled desire or fear, we run the risk of failure. Just look at our country and the current state of our political world as an example of this.


Both genders appear to be hopelessly stuck. How do we separate the idea that strength and dominance is masculine and that vulnerability and submission is feminine? Or, short of that, how do we let go of the stereotypes and negative meta messages that are attached to them. How do we get to a place where women can be commanding, dominant and in charge without always being seen as "masculine" or "trying to be like men," and men can be vulnerable and open to a world where they can be submissive without being weak, "like a woman" and assumed to be latently gay?

Once we can start to overcome this in a way that has something approaching societal acceptance and approval, more men will be willing and eager to follow their often ignored instincts and desires to be vulnerable, and open up the submissiveness within their nature. Women can begin to take the reigns more in relationships without feeling like their men are pathetic, weak, deserving of ridicule, or they themselves are going to be seen as masculine or bitches and experience their own sense of humiliation because they recognize their desire and ability to flourish in their leadership which is now still outside of mainstream acceptability.

I recognize that a lot of the images I have described are based on cliches and fantasies and that there are no doubt plenty of S-D/s relationships that don't have this dynamic. I aspire to one myself. But as long as the loathsome images of submissive men as emasculated, feminized sources of extreme ridicule and humiliation exist, there will be untold numbers of men who may well keep their longings for a non feminized submission to themselves because in the end, guilt by association is powerful. No one wants to risk unwanted humiliation and loss of self esteem because we are mistakenly placed in a category to which don't completely belong.

Control Through Loss - Loss Through Control

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Dominance Versus Control

A very skilled salesman once taught me that in every encounter there are two roles - the dominator and the controller. This may seem incorrect since we see domination as control. However in the sales environment, which is much more pervasive than most of us want to believe, especially when it comes to relationship interactions, they are separate and distinct. Romantic relationships often involve selling and negotiating so that we can get what we want. Of course it often isn't as clear cut as in a conscious sales encounter. We have to learn to ask for what we want and need and we usually have to negotiate to get all or most of those needs and wants met.

An interesting side note: I have come to realize that part of what appeals to me about a S-D/s relationship is something that was recently pointed out to me. In this kind of relationship, especially in the area of intimacy and sexuality, it is the complete opposite of the vanilla world. In S-D/s it is expected and vital that there is communication, instruction and feedback. In too many vanilla relationships there is little or none of this. Couples often say little or nothing to each other regarding their love making in or out of bed. Either because of embarrassment or discomfort or the assumption that both parties are just supposed to know how to please the other, these most vital links to fulfillment are often relegated to nearly literal attempts to read in the dark. We often have to try to gauge what pleases our lover through the few scant clues - the occasional moan, sigh, pant or even more rarely, the directed hand. Having always sought to please a lover and wanting to communicate with her as part of the process, it is highly unsatisfying to be with someone who isn't comfortable expressing themselves in all ways. I understand that everyone is different and that at times talk interrupts concentration, but I suspect that that is less the reason for limited or no communication than the other possibilities I've suggested. That said, it isn't as if I need or expect love making to be a talk show either; like most things a healthy balance is the goal. It makes me self conscious to express myself without getting anything back. At times it makes me feel vulnerable and exposed and not knowing how my words and actions are being received makes me pull back from giving myself to the process, losing myself, hopefully with her, to the passion. Often times when the chance is taken and words are spoken the response becomes evident through non verbal ques but it would be so much better to drive passion through the vulnerability of communication including being told what your lover wants and what they are experiencing emotionally and physically, and feeling free to do the same. S-D/s has the potential to practically eliminate this roadblock to unbridled passion since the expectation and desire is for the dynamic of direction and response, and communication in general. Of course the other grand dynamic is the ability to lose oneself and give oneself to another role, however formal or informal that may be. In a world stuck in the understanding that control and dominance are masculine and submission, service and acquiescence are feminine, this is at least a chance to break through those gender designations even as we are given permission to enjoy and experience them with those understandings, taboo as it may be to most of the world around us.

Getting back to the dominance versus control issue, in the S-D/s relationship there is dominance but there are two kinds of control. One of those forms of control is used by both. The domme and sub have equal control of the process of designing the relationship agreement. This control is based on the understanding that the underlying basis of the relationship is mutual love, need and desire for each other and thus equal. If you want to be in this relationship with me because of who I am in addition to, including and because of my willingness and desire to submit to you, then you need me as much as I need you since I want to be with you because of who you are, including your desire to dominate and be in charge of me and us. Otherwise it isn't going to work, because no matter what the agreement between us, if one of us isn't getting our needs met, especially if they have been discussed and agreed upon, one of us is leaving or going to make the relationship unworkable until the other person ends it. People can pretend that slavery is real or that D/s implies unqualified submission with no way out, but of course that's absurd. A healthy S-D/s relationship isn't going to resort to some insane entanglement like mind control, total possession and financial submission that would make leaving difficult, or God forbid physical restraint. The S-D/s relationship is in fact probably going to thrive in part because underlying all the dynamics, no matter how ironclad the agreement, unrelated to how serious or casual the roles and interplay, both parties will know that the other is free to end it and leave. No one can reign ultimate and supreme in a consensual arrangement.

The other kind of the control is what the domme has based on their agreement. Whether limited to scenes, 24/7 or whatever is arranged, it is mutually understood that she calls the shots as long as it stays within the terms of the agreement. In this way she is dominating and controlling. The sub's control has already been established. That said, although he may have agreed to give up control, he still has power. The power to either respond or react to what is happening between them. This is more subtle and subject to the terms they've agreed upon. If for example he has agreed to do what he is told without question or resistance as long as it is within pre-agreed boundaries and he objects, he has breached the agreement. His domme obviously has the right to do as she sees fit, be it punishment or withdrawal from the situation at hand. In a highly conscious agreement they would have already had provisions for this in place as well as his rights in the event the reverse occurs and she is out of compliance. Sorry to use such pseudo-legalese or formal sounding language, but hopefully that won't obscure the reality that for a
S-D/s relationship to begin and thrive, these understandings are vital. The vanilla world would do well to consider them too, and I'm sure that some do. It doesn't require a domme or a sub to look at the kind of relationship you want and figure out how to express it in some manner that is understandable and agreeable to both. As with virtually all human interactions, communication is key.

S-D/s

I am going to use S-D/s to refer to the dynamic that I seek. The "S" stands for Sensual. I have described the kind of relationship I want in previous entries, and in the interest of clear communications, and my own need to refine and define my vision, I include it below.

Displayed it this way - S-D/s - may already be in common use and understanding, but I haven't seen it. Since I am not a sub in the conventional sense, nor looking for a conventional domme, this is a start until something better comes along. This will save me from having to write a standard, descriptive explanation/disclaimer for the term D/s when referencing the kind of relationship that I, and other like minded "subs," would like to create. Of course I am open to ideas and suggestions.

* All references in the definition below and in entries will be assumed S-D/s to mean a woman in the dominant position and a submissive man, but of course the term can apply to all gender configurations of this dynamic.

S-D/s

The S-D/s relationship is based on mutual recognition of equality and the rights, needs and desires of both parties, and exists primarily within the context of a genuine relationship.

The S-D/s relationship is entered into consensually. It is based in the intention of mutual love, admiration and respect. It is truly equal since each party needs the other to make it work, and these equal partners have come to recognize and agree upon their equal but complimentary opposite roles regarding the power dynamic between them. This implies the domme's understanding that her sub's needs, feeling and desires are as important as hers and must be considered when she makes decisions for him and the two of them. If she truly has the kind of command and leadership skills and qualities to make her worthy of a sub's trust based submission, she should have the self control, wisdom, insight, understanding and compassion to only make decisions, take actions, and make requests that are respectful of the entrustment he has given her. She may decide that getting her needs met first is her wish, but it is understood that his needs are equally important, and to the best of her ability she will do what is required to meet them. S-D/s implies a non professional, but rather relationship based arrangement. Since the sexual kinks, fetishes, desires and proclivities of humans may be considered unlimited I would never dream of suggesting what they can and cannot be, other than to say that when it comes to sex, again, whatever is mutually agreed upon and hopefully satisfying is the only rule.

Conversely, the sub in a S-D/s relationship is not seen as a non-entity to be used without consideration or acknowledgment of his individuality, unless this is his desire and choice, and it is of mutual agreement. Unless it is otherwise stated and agreed upon the dynamic will not include pain, humiliation, or degradation. The domme will not require money or tributes but of course the sub is free to offer to pay within whatever context is consensual and comfortable between the two.

I will not use the term S-D/s to refer to conventional professional or lifestyle dommes, or D/s arrangements and dynamics, but instead continue to use the accepted form D/s.

Hopefully this will be a starting point of identification. Using the form S-D/s and applying my definition to it may be useful for people considering where they fit outside the confines and constructs of convention. Too often it has been put to me as an "either or" choice. Either you are a sub in the conventional sense and you understand that role including all relinquishing of rights to have your needs met (which may be the sub's need) or you are not a submissive at all and you just want to play out some kinks within the context of an otherwise vanilla relationship. Since I don't see myself in either camp at this point it is nice to have another choice. Perhaps others will relate to it and accept it too.