BDSM and "Not In Front of the Kids"

Trinity has a post at Let The Eat Pro-SM Feminist Safe Spaces considering the question of how much it's appropriate to let kids see of a D/s or M/s dynamic. Obviously, the sexual and SM acts themselves cannot possibly be appropriate, so it comes down to how much of the power-exchange dynamic the kids get to see.

For those who have a clearly scene-delineated relationship, where the kink happens only in the bedroom, this is much less of a problem, but for those where the relationship is broader and plays a role in everyday life (e.g. "24/7" D/s, M/s etc) there's much more of a question. If it's what you're used to, even what is natural to you, then to me it seems like it's a pressing matter, and one that needs some thought.

The first observation I have is that children are very accutely aware of power relationships in their lives. They live with them for most of their lives: whether it's Mummy and Daddy's power over them, or Teacher's power over them, or the intricate power-struggles in the playground and after school among their friends. Power is their constant companion one way or another, and because many of those who are more powerful than they are have actions that can seem random, unexplained or just strange, being aware of what's going on is important to know.

For a while, I was a big fan of the television show Supernanny, in each episode of which Essex nanny Jo Frost would go into the home of a family with "problem" children, and over a few days observe their behavioural patterns, then make recommendations for how to handle the problems in a more constructive way. As an aside, Jo Frost is the physical model I use in my mind for Lady Rosenthyme; but kinky Governess Lady R. obviously has much different methods for dealing with her charges, and that's a game between consenting adults. Even so, I think that some of Jo Frost's approach works well in terms of D/s (apparently, she has had approaches from men wishing her to play a Domme role for them - but she doesn't do kink).

Back to the point: while I have heard one or two stories that not everything ends up as rosy as the television programme suggests for all the families featured, which in turn suggests that maybe not every technique Ms Frost recommends is necessarily a good one, the one aspect of the show that always struck me was the initial "observation" phase. Every time, I saw a child who understood very clearly how power was distributed in the family, and was taking advantage of any situation in which power was ambiguous, or simply not exercised. It is from observing this that I say children in general understand power, and are very sensitive to who has it and who doesn't.

(I say "in general", because I hold my childhood to be a counter-example in many respects)

Because children are this sensitive to power relationships, and because I feel that there's no realistic way to hide a power-exchange relationship completely, I am sure that there are always going to be subtle hints that a child will detect and interpret.

Trinity writes:

I do feel uneasy about the people who seem to think that not having sex in front of the kids but keeping the power dynamic really obvious is enough. I've heard people say "As long as we also tell little Julia that some households are woman-run or egalitarian, it's all good" and... I'm not convinced.

I mean, I do think some people have naturally dominant or submissive temperaments, and I think kids can pick up on that. So I'm not saying "Don't act like yourselves." But I do think "Daddy is Sir, but Mommy's not Ma'am" sends a message, and I think that's not appropriate.

My response to this is that I think you need to do something to explain the power dynamic, otherwise that inappropriate message is still going to be sent.

In comments, Livetta writes:

just telling "little Julia that some households are woman-run or egalitarian " doesn't bring it home, illustrate the point, or normalize the variety of healthy ways relationships and sexuality can be approached, and that seems the implied underlying heart of the issue. How does one give kids the information and the tools to think critically about this stuff (whether the relationships are kinky or vanilla, gay or straight), with an eye to the fact that they will one day be, but are not yet, independent beings

And my feeling is that this is a problem that has to be addressed head-on.

Given that children are likely to be aware that there's something going on power-structure-wise, whether we talk about it or not, it stands to reason that if we don't address it, then they will draw their own conclusions about what power structures in a family "should" be like. How often do we hear people who talk about growing up in abusive homes say things like, "I never knew it wasn't supposed to be like that. I thought everyone's family worked the same"? Indeed, isn't it reasonable to suggest that such subtle power distinctions are often a child's first introduction to Patriarchy?

I think there are actually two answers to this question (bear in mind, I do not have children, and do not have anything like an extensive study background on child psychology or anything, when I make these suggestions). The first deals with handling the clear power-dynamic, and also to some extent is a cover for any accidental lapses in language around the child.

Scorn is poured (and rightly, I think), on the notion that just saying "As long as we also tell little Julia that some households are woman-run or egalitarian, it's all good" is enough. Clearly it isn't. Livetta in the quote above talks about this "not bringing it home" or showing how those families work. So I think the first step in this part of the answer is a good social life for one's kids, so they go to other kids' families and see how things are done there. Step two involves discussion of how Mummy (or Daddy) made and makes a free choice to be obedient and give power to the other.

Points I would probably include in such a talk might be:

• It's chosen and it's only one way that a couple can excpress their love for each other
• NOBODY else gets to be in charge of Mummy (or Daddy) - and that includes little Julia. It's special between Mummy and Daddy.
• Words like "slave", "Master", "Sir", etc. have bad meanings for most people, but they are Mummy and Daddy's special words for each other (like some people call each other "sweetheart", "hunnybun", and say also like any pet names that they have for little Julia - it's not okay for anyone else to use those names about anyone).
• Different people choose different ways of being together, so sometimes Mummy (or Daddy) is in charge instead; and sometimes they both are.

The second answer I have is to display a constructive power-exchange relationship. While I obviously think that children are very sensitive to power relationships, the most important thing is always how those relationships impact upon them, and how they play out in front of them. Returning to Supernanny, one common theme that came up was where one parent was clearly the one "in charge", and the other parent always deferred to hir (examples of both genders being dominant were shown at one time or another). This dynamic can in one form be summed up by "You wait until your father gets home!" The other frequent component of it was that a punishment or telling-off would be given by the subservient partner, only to be countermanded or overruled by the dominant one.

Naturally, in these circumstances, the child knows exactly where zie stands with the subservient partner: they can pretty much get away with anything, because they won't get in trouble from that quarter - she (he) has no power.

One thing I've talked about in terms of how a full-time D/s relationship works is that responsibility is delegated so that when the Submissive partner has talents in one area, zie is given responsibility and autonomy to make sure things work smoothly there. The Dominant partner trusts and backs hir partner in any decisions in that area. Indeed, Jo Frost advocated soemthing like this: the "dominant" partner in these hierarchical families she encountered was always told that zie had to back up and reinforce hir partner's say-so, instead of undermining it.

If the D/s partners present a united front in decisions regarding their child, then this will to some extent mask the underlying D/s dynamic, because the power as far as it concerns the child will be more evenly spread.

Other ways in which this "delegation" technique can have a positive effect is if there are areas in which the Submissive partner is given ultimate responsibility, and the Dominant partner abides by hir say-so (as long as the direction for what has to be done comes from the Dominant partner, the means of getting it done is determined by the Submissive partner). What this presents iss a situation in which the overt power is reversed. Now, obviously, there are other issues here (for example, if the Submissive is given control only over traditionally "women's" roles, it could still send the wrong message), but it can help to present more than one way of seeing the world.

I think that any D/s or M/s relationship where a child is present in the family needs to be on a very low protocol basis, and very understated. But I don't think the issue can be avoided altogether, and I don't think it can just be hidden, and hope that little Julia doesn't pick up on it. All that is left is to deal with the questions that Julia might need answering, and deal with them in a way that is appropriate to her age.