SM Archetypes and Pain

As soon as I realised that Staci Newmahr had created two different classification schemes in her book about sadomasochism, "Playing on the Edge", I knew that I would have to see if I could figure out how those two schemes related to one another.   Were they independent variables in a multi-dimensional space, or were identifications linked, so that one's identity in one would imply something about one's identity in the other?   I was not so bothered about "if you're this then you can't be that" as I was by "if you're this, then you must be that", so long as the "can't be" only eliminated one element and was based on an obvious contradiction in terms.

The two classifications were "topping and bottoming archetypes" (three archetypes each for topping and bottoming), introduced in Chapter 5, and four "discourses of pain", introduced in Chapter 6.

To investigate this, I made a few rough-and-ready tables in Word to try to see if I could pick out recognisable interaction types from BDSM that fit the intersection of each archetype with each discourse of pain.

Firstly, a recap of the six archetypes and the four discourses:

Archetypes:

Archetypal identities are fluid and can change from scene to scene in the same person, and can overlap at the same time as one another.   they are also, so far as I can tell, not intended to be exhaustive but simply describe the most commonly observed types as seen by Newmahr.

Martyr

The Martyr bottom most clearly constructs a sense of helplessness, presenting as, "I do not want to do this, but I am being made to!"   It is presented as being "for the good of another".   The aim is to relinquish responsibility for one's suffering.

Indispensable Service (or ISB)

Centring around performing in a pleasing way for the top, this can be in terms of direct responses in a scene, or in other ways.   This is the archetype most closely linked with the "good boy!" or "good girl!" reward scheme in D/s especially.

Badass Bottom (or BAB)

The BAB pushes hirself, or the top, to new heights (or depths, depending on one's perspective), with the aim of proving or improving hirself.   Newmahr describes this as "competitive", and "an explicit dare".

Badass Top (or BAT)

The "mean" and "cruel" top.   A performance of being a nasty person, a victimiser, someone who just loves to see you suffer.

Benevolent Dictatorship (or BD)

Whether cast as the Emperor or the Mother, this centres on asking for obedience in return for protection or nurture.   Key words are discipline, caring, decision-maker.

Service Top (or ST)

The explicit aim is to please the bottom, and most openly acknowledges the bottom's agency within the scene.   The ST is understood as deriving hir pleasure from the bottom's pleasure, rather than any other source.

Discourses of Pain:

Again, it is possible for one person to use more than one discourse of pain, either in serial or simultaneously

Transforming

Pain is felt and then reinterpreted either consciously or subconsciously as a pleasurable stimulus.   How a top relates to causing "transforming" pain is not quite clear to me, because it is the one that is most wholly sited in the bottom's own body and mind.   It might be understood in terms of the intention that the bottom should transform it.

Sacrificial

Pain is felt as suffering, but accepted for "a greater good", that is, for the benefit of the top.   The top's understanding of pain in this discourse is as a gift for hir benefit.   For example, "I cause the pain to receive it as a gift."

Payoff

Pain is understood as a barrier to break through to get to the "endorphin rush" as a payoff for oneself.   Like "transforming" pain, it is sited in the bottom's own body, but arguably a top would understand this from the point of view of pushing someone through the barrier.

Autotelic

Pain is felt directly and simultaneously as pleasure in its own right.   Similarly, the causing of pain is understood as a pleasure in its own right.

***
 I have created three tables: "topping archetypes against bottoming pain discourses", "topping archetypes against topping pain discourses" and "bottoming archetypes against bottoming pain discourses".   I did not feel confident in figuring out the scripts or roles that might emerge from "bottoming archetypes against topping pain discourses" because of the less clear-cut relationship of a top to pain discourses (with the notable exception of autotelic understandings of pain).   I felt more confident with the "top/top" because I am a top and could try using introspection to some degree on that one.

The first table, then, is "Topping archetype" listed across the top, and "Bottoming pain discourse" listed down the left.   What you see is the screen cap of my initial attempts at making sense of the intersections:

In "Transforming / BAT", the idea is that the bottom's tendency to transform pain into pleasure is a form of "permission" for the top to be cruel in the BAT way.   However, Newmahr noted that transforming pain tends to happen mostly for those bottoms who play with slight to moderate pain (I typed the wrong word in my notes, as you can see!), so there is a sense that the BAT may have to hold back if the transforming pain discourse is to work.

A bottom who relates to pain through the sacrificial discourse would be anathema for the service top, who only enjoys it when the bottom enjoys it too.

The BD archetype sits awkwardly in this table: while there is no intrinsic contradiction between BD and an autotelic bottom, or between a BD and a transforming bottom, in each case there is no real interaction between the pain discourse and the object of the archetype.   A bottom who is "transforming pain" might, in fact, be a frustration to the BD when the purpose is discipline rather than play; while offering pain as reward has a strong overlap instead with ST.   The autotelic bottom might be rewarded with pain for a "job well done", but it does not sit neatly with the protection/nurture side of the BD archetype, and is like an inverse of the discipline side.

The last note to make here is on the BAT faced with an autotelic bottom.   I am at once proud and disappointed to have been told by a top, "You enjoy this too much, I'm not going to do it to you any more!"   That seems to be the natural conclusion to the BAT/autotelic scene, where the "cruel" performance is punctured because the "cruelty" only results in "Mmmmm, more!"   The only way to be cruel is not to play!

Next, there is the internal script generated by a top of each archetype, crossed with that top's understanding of pain:

 

Given my note on the difficulty of interpreting the "transforming" pain discourse particularly from a top's perspective, that row more or less repeats the same row of the first table.

When a BAT understands a bottom as transforming pain, I reasoned that the performance of cruelty requires creating a challenge: "You think you can transform pain into pleasure?   Well, how about this, then!"   This is the same tension as I mentioned before, that the performance almost requires a pushing of the bottom's boundaries.

When the BD has the same interpretation, there is also a challenge, because "pain as discipline" is now off the table, and so either the bottom must be nudged into a different discourse, or discipline play is not based in corporal means of discipline.   As before, while a "reward" scheme can be understood in the application of pain, it is harder to paint this as coming from the BD archetype rather than the ST archetype.

And the ST views the tranforming pain discourse as being evidence of a job well done.

Sacrificial pain is more interesting.   As the table shows, it seems to me that when the pleasure of giving pain is seen in terms of receiving it as a gift of sacrifice, then the BAT performing cruelty has the natural script of "Thank you.   I want more!"   This is a familiar script: the bottom performs well, and then is told "now do it all again!"   Whether it is under direct stimulation or in performing arduous tasks, the BAT is simply taking the sacrifice and saying, "and another!"

When a BD understands pain as a gift, it naturally becomes the "price" for "my protection", and the bottom is understood as saying, "I gladly pay the price in suffering."

A ST who understands pain as a gift makes no sense within a scene; the goal of a ST is to give a gift of pleasure, not to take a sacrifice of pain.

The Payoff discourse also has some interesting structures that seem to emerge.   When the top understands pain as something zie puts the bottom through for some goal of the bottoms, it makes some curious - but recognisable - scripts.

The BAT who likes payoff pain is the "Drill Sergeant" play role: it results in the script, "I like making you suffer to get what you want, so I will make you suffer as much as possible on the way!"   The payoff bottom them replies, "The more it hurts, the better the end result will be!"

It seems to me that the BD and the ST both would accept the bottom's end goal as their own payoff; however, the ST sees the causing of suffering as a cost to be borne, just as the pain is a cost to be borne for the Payoff bottom.   The BD sees the causing of pain for the payoff to be a journey and a reward in and of itself, not from the causing of pain but from seeing the evolution of the pain into the final reward of pleasure - a "nurture" relationship.

Probably the box I fall into as a Dominant-sadist is the "autotelic-BD" box.   Like with Sacrificial pain, the surface script is, "this pain is the price you pay for my protection and guidance."   However, where sacrificial pain is a gift given and accepted, the autotelic BD takes the pain as tribute, demanded from hir subject.

Finally, we have the bottoming archetypes combining with bottoming discourses of pain:

The combination of Martyr with Transforming pain was a curious one, because on the face of it, they should not match up well, but in fact it feels to me as though this is probably in real life the most common combination on the table.   The reason is that the martyrdom archetype is an excuse to feel pain that can then be turned into pleasure - if the aim is to give up responsibility, then one can say, "I have to feel this pain anyway, so I may as well try to understand it as pleasurable!"   Arguably, this is also where my "anti-Martyr" script comes into play most easily.

Similarly, there is a deeper level to be found when Transforming pain combines with ISB.   The process described above seems to me to fit what I have been told by some bottoms about how the "transforming pain" discourse works for them.   When pain is delivered as a punishment, that breaks this transforming mechanism and explains why context is a big factor in how much something hurts.

The Badass Bottom who uses Transforming pain discourse is summarised in the table as a grunt of pain, followed by the pleasure, followed by "I enjoyed that!   Give me another!"   This, again, is something that I have observed in action.

The concept of an "autotelic martyr" seems to be a contradiction in terms: if pain is a pleasure in itself then how can it also be something one is forced to endure?   The only way I can see this combination as making sense is when a bottom agrees to play on the edges of consent, and safety - edgeplay, in other words.

There is no contradiction between autotelic pain discourse and the ISB archetype, but as with BD playing with autotelic or transforming pain, there is also no connection either.   The pleasure an autotelic pain bottom might have from pain is incidental to the pleasure obtained from performing well in a given task (with the possible exception of things like, "orgasm while I whip you bloody", I suppose).   In terms of a given scene, it therefore seems unlikely that a bottom would use the combination of the ISB archetype and the autotelic pain discourse at the same time.

This leaves the interesting conclusion that an autotelic pain bottom ought to use that discourse only when playing as a BAB.   I said at the start that one of my concerns was whether or not a particular identity on one axis would automatically imply an identity on the other axis, because to my mind that would suggest that there is some underlying, perhaps unstated, assumption at the heart of both classifications.

In this case, my suspicion is that the missing element lies in the archetypes: since they are not exhaustive but allow for gaps, my suspicion is that other archetypes exist into which autotelic pain bottoming fits more naturally.

The second point of weakness is in the limited applicability of BD and ISB.   Both of them in various ways were incidental to (rather than contradictory of) some of the pain discourses.   In my post on Chapter 5, I wondered whether there was any D/s relationship that did not include some element of BD.   Arguably, the same question could be put concerning ISB.   This raises a suspicion is that these are implicit "fiddle factors" to account for the overlap between D/s and SM and are not like the other archetypes outlined.   While SM players can certainly use these archetypes in play, they seem to be designed around those who identify most clearly as "Dominant" or "submissive", whereas the other archetypes are designed more clearly around SM play.

This points to an area for further research: looking at the community of longer-term D/s relationships, and seeing if there are underlying narratives, archetypes and discourses there that may have different qualities from those in the SM community.

One question to look at is to try to sort the pain discourses into a gendered hierarchy, the way Newmahr did with the archetypes (she started this idea by suggesting that payoff pain discourse is strongly masculine).   Then observing whether there is a tendency for the combinations that result in contradictions or disconnections to occur where the discourse is strongly one gender and the archetype is strongly the other, and whether the "natural" pairings occur where the discourse and archetype are similarly gendered.

Another analytic question would be to look at which combinations would play well with which other combinations, based on (for example) the "top archetype/bottom pain discourse" table as a reference.   Given that there are potentially dozens of combinations, I really don't have the energy to look at that myself, although readers are invited to make suggestions in comments.