Questioning obedience

Recently, a friend of mine whose husband has recently taken her as his "slave" in a Master/slave BDSM relationship (her idea: she's been training him up for the role for a while) asked me my opinion about something that was bothering her in her relationship. Her Master/Hubby had set up a scene in which she was "loaned" to another man. She was turned on by the scenario, and the acts were ones that she found enjoyable, but she was unsettled by it all the same. She told me that, even though she was unsure, and even unhappy, with the set-up, she obeyed, "because that's what I want to do".

Then she hit me with the doosra: "Do you think this makes me less of a submissive?" She was wondering if the fact that she wasn't leaping without hesitation, and with full abandon, to do her Master's wish, that this meant she wasn't "truly" submissive enough. This is someone whom I have tended to find very together and with-it when it comes to the mental side of D/s, so I was baffled that even she could have such questions. I told her truthfully that having doubts but obeying anyway (when obedience is what she wants to give, and it's not coerced) is surely a deeper form of submission than doing it without a moment's thought. Unquestioning obedience is not what I want, I said. I basically reassured her in her role and her self-identity, that she could have doubts and still be a "good" submissive, or a "good" person.

But if "unquestioning obedience" isn't what D/s and M/s are about, then what is it instead?

I think we have to recognise that obedience is a big part of the deal. As a Dominant, I certainly want to trust that when I give an instruction, that my Submissive partner will perform it, so long as it falls within the boundaries set by the negotiated parameters of the relationship (e.g. limits, home/public boundaries etc). But that means that "unquestioning" has to change, and if so, into what?

In my "5 Golden Rules" for a D/s relationship, Rule #2 is that "A Submissive may ask me any question, but I might choose not to answer." In this, there are several implicit statements: First, it is implicit that there will be times when I expect a Submissive to have questions that zie needs answering before zie can carry out my wishes; or to help hir understand the nature or purpose of my plans. Second, it is implicit that when such questions exist, my partner is supposed to ask them (an alternative phrasing would be "A Submissive must ask any relevant questions zie may have.") Third, it is implicit that I might have legitimate reasons for not wanting to reveal my hand: the purpose of the rule is to enable my partner to acquire information that zie needs, but if the information is not needed then I do not have to give it. Fourth, it is implicit that the rule does NOT allow for "arguing back": the fact that I do not have to give an answer means that I can simply say, "Because I said so. Now do it." And that would be as much answer as I am required to give.

So, that fourth implication of Golden Rule #2 reveals that "questioning obedience" doesn't mean questioning the Dominant's will or intentions. A legitimate question might be to raise concerns about what is going to happen, and in so doing avert disaster by bringing to the Dominant's attention some crucial information (and then, if the Dominant has already taken it into account, zie can legitimately say "trust me" - some kinds of scenes involving emotion play or mindfuck play require such tricks). But the point is not to change the intention, it is to avert something that would ruin the intended outcome.

It is the first and second implication that reveals the sort of questioning I like to have from a Submissive partner: I like it when zie does not accept blindly an instruction but wants to understand the purpose behind it: it's a good way to become better at carrying out future instructions, and to get to know the workings of each other's minds more intimately. It proves that zie is as engaged in the scene, and in me, as I am in hir.

In this sense of "questioning", then one could phrase what I'm describing as "engaging obedience", or even "learning obedience" - "learning" in the same sense as a student or apprentice might obey in order to learn a new skill, for example. This is a type of obedience that has its own investment in the actions or in the purpose behind them, and it does not purely take place for the benefit of another, who has "power-over". So, my friend may not have wanted to do the things she was told to do, but she definitely did want to obey (and, paradoxically, doing something she didn't want to do can make doing it seem exciting even when the act itself is not). She had her own investment in the act, and in the obedience. For all that there is use of objectifying language, and of objectification as a type of emotion-play, in BDSM - most of the time, a Submissive or "slave" is understood as an entity with hir own engagement in the scene and with hir partner; zie is not merely a tool to be told "do this, go there", zie is understood as a subject with hir own involvement and investment in doing things or going somewhere (though the payoff may not be revealed until later in a planned scene). BDSM obedience, I would hazard, is generally set at this involved, invested, engaged level where (if the payoff is not ultimately forthcoming) obedience could be rescinded (i.e. the relationship is broken off). For my friend, the way she described it, the payoff was in the very act of knowing she was doing her Master's wishes, and in the feeling of being "forced" to do it (even though she willingly obeyed). It also came afterwards in the form of reliving the scene in her mind and enjoying it without the associated wobbles that she had felt at the time.

All of that deals with "questioning" on a person-to-person level: I've talked about how I, as a Dominant, like to have my Submissive partner question me, and how I see (in general) such questioning working in good BDSM.

But the situation, and worry, that my friend had was not about her questioning her Master; it was about questioning herself. She questioned her own desire to obey, she questioned how comfortable she was with the set-up with which her master presented her, and she questioned her ability to live up to certain standards (and whether those were appropriate standards to live up to). It is sometimes said that the only enemy one need truly fear is oneself, and this questioning is that kind of enemy. But at the same time, when one has these questions and faces them, and is still able to follow through with one's commitment to obey, or to carry out some other self-appointed task, then one has truly triumphed and has self-mastery.

When I talk about power exchange in BDSM, I talk precisely about having the power first, before being able to give it to another. If one has not self-mastery, how can one give mastery of oneself over to another? But, without this questioning, how can one truly master oneself? So, "questioning obedience" is not just about a form of robust and healthy communication between partners in a D/s or M/s relationship; in another sense it is also about being robust and healthy in oneself.

This is also the way that I approach religion. I do not offer unquestioning obedience to God; I don't think I am able to do so even if I wanted to. But instead, I question both internally my faith and my internal will to do God's will; and externally (that is, in my prayers and listening to God) I question what God's plan is leading up to for me; sometimes God answers, and sometimes God smiles enigmatically and says, "You will see in good time". And I trust God to guide me well, even though God does not always allow me to see the path ahead so clearly.

As a final word on the value of questioning one's superiors, I leave you with O'Ren Ishii: