This is an important topic that perhaps deserves a more detailed response than the one I wrote before. I have seen this issue debated in the BDSM community since the earliest internet discussions in the 90s. By now, it is pretty much settled for anybody who knows a bit about BDSM. That’s why I was quite surprised to read your article.
To frame the issue for those not familiar with BDSM, there are two basic ways to structure BDSM relationships. The first is to do “scenes”, which means doing BDSM play for a limited amount of time. The participants become particular characters (“I’ll be Great Inquisitor Torquemada, you’ll be the witch”) that do certain things to each other, which may or not include sex. The second form of BDSM goes on all the time. It is called 24/7 or “lifestyle”. It includes Master/slave relationships, some deep Dom/sub relationships, domestic discipline, and some other forms of BDSM. Many lifestylers reject the idea that they are “playing” or adopting characters. For them what the do is what they are, they are not pretending to be somebody else. In fact, some lifestylers derogatorily refer to those who are not lifestylers as “players”. To adopt BDSM as a lifestyle is a serious decision, for many people is as important as getting married. They do “collaring” or some other public ceremony to mark this momentous transition. Lifestyle is not the same as “consensual not-consent”, because some lifestyle relationships use safewords or other means to cancel consent, or have negotiated limits.
I agree with you that lifestyle BDSM should not be adopted by default, accident or trickery. That may happen sometimes. I also agree with you that playing in scenes should be the most common form of BDSM, and that in that case a clear starting and finishing line is the better way to go.
However, I see many things in your article that are derogatory of lifestyle BDSM. For example:
“This was something that few partners simply could not understand. They didn’t want to or sometimes even know how to turn their BDSM personas off; they couldn’t give up the identity and just be themselves.” Some people see themselves as being Dom or submissive all the time. For them, it is not a role that they adopt temporarily but an essential part of themselves. It is disrespectful of you to suggest that because they want to do that, they “simply could not understand”. It is you who doesn’t understand that there are ways of doing BDSM different from yours, and they are OK.
“The roles we play, the high-heeled leather shoes we step into, the personas we adopt — all of these things are temporary, they must be, inherently, and if anything, for our own safety and the safety of others, and the authenticity of our lives when we’re not having sex.” You seem to be saying that lifestyle BDSM, which is not temporary, is inherently unsafe. Before condemning what other people do, you should bring strong supporting evidence.
“I’ve also noticed that, for a lot of people, when they can’t separate the characters they assume during sex from the person they are outside of the bedroom, they have a tendency to want the character more and more from themselves and their partners, sort of chasing the dragon, like a drug addict chases the next high, a high that always has to be higher than the last high, never satisfied with just being ordinary.” So, you compare the lifestylers to drug addicts. You say that unless they recognize that they are adopting characters, they are doing it wrong. This is judgmental and disrespectful. How is this “just a suggestion”?
“These are the people who aren’t into BDSM, these are the people for whom BDSM is a lifestyle as such that it’s a part of their personality.” And what is wrong with that? You also disregard the most likely scenario: that it is not that those people are “in role” all the time, but for them, BDSM is the way they relate to each other, an intrinsic part of their relationship that they do not turn on and off.
“It’s not a sexual game and thus any challenge or resistance is a negative mark on their identity. It’s a shunning of who they are, complete with all of the toxic manifestations of being — or sensing being — rejected.” Again, you are saying that lifestyle BDSM is toxic without a shred of evidence to support your assertion. These are very strong statements to be merely “suggestions”. And, by the way, BDSM is not always sexual. For some people, or on some occasions, is a psychological activity that goes beyond sex or is not connected to sex.
“But keep in mind that it’s just a game.” No, for some people it is not a game.
“It’s an activity, one that can be very hot and rewarding, but also one that can attract some rather toxic personalities and have some disastrous consequences.” Here you seem to be confusing lifestyle BDSM with abuse. Misidentifying abuse can have serious consequences. People accused of sexual abuse can lose their jobs, their spouses, their children. Hence, accusing people who practice lifestyle BDSM of being abusers is highly irresponsible.
I am not a BDSM lifestyler myself, but I was one for a year and can appreciate how enriching that kind of commitment can be. I don’t think you wrote this article out of malice, but out of ignorance. However, you should do your research before criticizing things that you don’t know.
