I appreciate that anybody who suffers from self-esteem issues can choose something about themselves which is outside their jurisdiction (such as sexual orientation or BDSM preferences) and big it up all nice and juicy so they can feel better. I’m all up for that, I think that kind of self-validation is fantastic and healthy and helpful.
However, I don’t think that suffering from low-self-esteem and trying to feel better about it can justify issuing proclamations as if they were true for all time and spewing them about the place like an incontinent llama with the runs.
So what am I talking about? I’m so glad you asked! I was just getting to that. :)
Further to my definition, I have some rantfestness to take care of. So here it is.
- I am tired to the fucking marrow of my bones of hearing the “submission-is-a-gift” brigade sing their worn-out used-up song about how “submission” is supposed to be such an almighty precious gift.
The “submission-is-a-gift” principle fails my “Is there a reasonable analogue in mainstream?” test:
- Is being a specific gender a gift?
- Is being a specific orientation a gift?
- Is dating somebody a gift?
- Is treating a partner with respect and courtesy a gift?
- Is being a considerate lover a gift?
- Is fulfilling an agreed part of a negotiated arrangement a gift?
- Is consensually participating in [insert specific sexual activity here] a gift?
(just in case anybody isn’t absolutely clear on this, I regard respect, courtesy, considerate loverness, agreement fulfillment and consensual participation to be basic relationship requirements, not gifts)
I can’t think of any kind of purposeful giving which doesn’t involve some kind of reward, even if it’s solely for the feelgood factor. In principle anybody could just “gift” their submission to a bottom, top, switch, cow, horse, or even a bunch of celery if they really wanted to. So why dress it all up in this altruism costume? If what is on offer in return for this “gift” is unimportant, why does it matter so much to whom a grasping sweaty little palm will open up to give away this fabulous jewel of preciousness?
I’ve written about the desire to receive dressed up as the desire to give before. So if the “submission-is-a-gift” brigade are so riddled with altruism with all this gift business, why do they rigidly restrict their giving only to those who give them “domination”? Why dress up “taking dominance” in the altruismical “gift-of-submission” costume?
I’ve never heard any of the “submission-is-a-gift” brigade talk about “domination” as a gift, even though “submission” symbiotically requires it. My interpretation of those spouting the “submission-is-a-gift” party line is that they are less about giving and a whole lot more about the taking.
For real, this is a “gift”, but I can’t give it unless you give me something first. Even though I can’t give unless I take, I’m not all about the take-take-taking, honest.
If I say “submission-is-a-gift” enough times, it’ll come true!
So the next time I hear somebody spew that “submission-is-a-gift” crap, I swear I’m gonna skuh-reeeeeem!!