Anyroad. Just clarifying that it's one particular hot button issue that's set off my alarms in GC's original article, and I did try to confine my criticism to that one bit. I didn't issue a blanket condemnation of the entire article. I said there are certainly parts that will benefit novices.
The bit that set me off was what Addie termed 'role essentialism', though I like Ingy's 'role fundamentalism' even better.
The reason it annoys me is ( I'll try to explain it again, as I'm clearly doing a shite and bollocks job of it
) that certain sorts of people in the BDSM community are not satisfied with dominant or sub, or top or bottom, but split hairs on the roles to try to redefine them. The problem is that their motivations for redefining these roles are entirely based in their self-serving needs to be Better Than Thou
, or Dommiest Dom that Ever Dommed, or Subbiest Subslavething Evar. Then you get dominants who don't get that their ROLE is to be subtly directed by the sub (hence the sub has the real power) so when their sub does what they're supposed to do and subtly directs the action, the dominant gets a bee up his bum because they don't ask 'how high' when told to jump, so suddenly these doms brand such subs 'not real subs', or 'brats', or 'SAMs' (smart ass masochists), or 'topping from the bottom' or 'switches' or any number of other derogatory terms meant to belittle the sub. These doms' arguments amount to 'if you were really a sub, you'd do what I tell you to.' That's coercive
and precisely the opposite of what responsible BDSM practitioners would advise.
And subs are not immune from trying to one-up each other either. It would be one thing if they were just trying to describe themselves or their individual styles better, but the motivation for this hairsplitting is inevitably that they want to broadcast that they are Subbier Than Thou, because a Very Small Portion of the BDSM community consist of 'Real Subs' who are 'born that way' and have some burning 'need' to submit, while the rest of you subs are just wannabes or Not Quite Subs or otherwise inferior. Then you get hair-splitting like 'sexual submissives' and 'psychological submissives' and 'natural submissives', as in the article GC posted. @Addie
pointed out in that one sub's article how that sub does not identify as a 'psychological sub' or any other sort of sub but conveniently as a 'true submissive'. Of course! The only reason she seems to need that definition is to prove she's the real deal, implying others aren't. I've seen that so many times that I can't help but roll my eyes. There's always an ulterior motive.
If you're questioning what I'm describing, have a look at this sample Wikipedia page showcasing the bickering over BDSM's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BDSM&diff=next&oldid=635158013
Just note all the hairsplitting on the different types of subs and doms, and how one person's attempt to simplify all that bollocks back to BDSM's original definitions meets with all sorts of resistance. This is hotly contested stuff amongst that subset who want to redefine the basics. The basics are simple: the dom/top is the giver of psychological or physical sensation, and the sub/bottom is the receiver. There's simply no need to pervert it beyond that.
Once again, the reason this shite matters is because the people trying to redefine the basics are opening up the original definitions to manipulation by abusers
. Abusers are coercive, and subs who decide that they can't be subs without being The Subbiest Natural Slave Ever Born open themselves up to a mindset that erodes barriers that were originally there for a bloody reason. Subs who only submit during discrete scenes are NOT less-than-submissive, they're just using common sense and not putting more trust in a dominant than he or she has earnt.
I'll stop there for now.