Reflections On Role-Play

As one who has certainly enjoyed various "play" with subs, I should like to refer readers to Shakespeare's comedy, A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM. Here, the mischievous fairy, Puck, has sport with the humans, repairing their love triangles (or, more accurately, quadrangle!) while genuinely enjoying himself at their expense. His immortal line -- "Lord, what fools these mortals be!" -- speaks volumes. Ironically, some of these same noble mortals later amuse themselves at the attempts of the "Mechanicals" (i. e., the uneducated tradesmen) to perform a play for entertainment on the occasion of the three weddings. Yet presumably all is done in the spirit of friendship, and nothing is mean-spirited. Indeed, the famous speech with which Puck closes the drama reminds readers is highly suggestive, in more ways than one:

"If we shadows have offended,
Think but this, and all is mended,
That you have but slumbered here
While these visions did appear.
And this weak and idle theme,
No more yielding but a dream,
Gentles, do not reprehend,
If you pardon, we will mend. [V.i.400-407]

The notion of a play-within-a-play, and the added element that perhaps we who observe others are ourselves being observed is ripe with implications for role-play. Of course, many D/s relationships involve this activity, and the question often arises as to whether it may serve any purpose other than simple enjoyment. I believe that whether one engages in doctor/patient, teacher/student, cop/driver, or any number of other scenes in which there is a Dominant character (with control, power) and a submissive (lacking both), it is possible to find a metaphor of considerable significance.

Reflect again upon the nature of the D/s relationship. If the sub indeed gives up "control" (itself an illusion) to the Dom, the question arises as to who is truly in control. Demetrius and Lysander join Theseus in kind-hearted laughter at the bumbling performers, but were they not the source of Puck's merriment earlier? Who is laughing at whom? Who is "controlling" whom?

It is strange how the dualistic notion of Dom/sub contrasts with another simple game played by children: paper, rock, scissors. Here, paper covers rock, rock breaks scissors, and scissors cuts paper. There is no "greater" and no "lesser"; each vanquishes and is vanquished in turn.

I recommend that those interested in cerebral Domination develop a greater sensitivity and awareness of everything implied in role-play. If they do, they will also develop an enhanced appreciation of their subs, and become better attuned to the subtle ways in which they, too, are being Dominated. As the actors in our own role-plays, we are but "shadows." If ever we offend, we must wait to be pardoned. Perhaps, on some far loftier plane, all our efforts are but a dream, and there is a Puck-like creature laughing at all our pretensions -- including the Dom and sub personae we assume.

Contact Information; also, Reply to H.F.

Presumably, the hyperlink set up by this website should enable readers to contact me. However, if there are those who have difficulty with such navigation, I am perfectly happy to receive e-mails directly through the following: mestameh@yahoo.com.
*****
I received a query from H. F., and must offer this response: The fantasies to which you alluded are certainly consistent with a submissive personality. Moreover, it is not uncommon for such desires to come into focus at puberty or even pre-pubescence. What you have described leads me to believe you are indeed a submissive, but I must urge you to exercise some caution in exploring the lifestyle. I have a built-in bias towards the older Doms, since the younger ones are often somewhat abusive, and fail to appreciate the dynamics of the relationship.

Domination and monogamy

Another question which I have been asked concerns my use of the plural: "subs." I shall be brief in the explanation. When romantically involved -- and I am not, at the moment -- I am strictly monogamous. However, this choice does not preclude the possibility of a non-sexual involvement. Moreover, there are certainly subs whom I see quite infrequently. [One visited me only four times over the course of a year, while another saw me no more than once a month.] Thus, I devoutly hope the reader will not jump to erroneous conclusions, and will instead have faith that I keep no "harem." I prefer to think of myself as a "therapist" of sorts -- a Dom who sees very few clients, but may certainly accept more than one at a time.

on the nature of "cerebral Domination"

One question which often arises is whether sex is always necessary in a D/s relationship. I’m still a little uncertain, but I believe firmly that it is not. For example, when I first meet a sub -- when I deal with someone who wishes to “explore” her submissiveness, or even someone who is relatively inexperienced -- I prefer to establish ground rules. I feel that it is FAR more important for the sub to understand the nature of our interpersonal relationship -- i. e., what I expect, and why. I stress that I am not a cold-hearted, exploitative person taking advantage of what she permits me to do. On the contrary, I am very nurturing and supportive, and genuinely want the experience to be a rewarding one for her. Some subs have had major improvements with their academic studies, advanced their careers, enjoyed creative breakthroughs, and even enhanced their interpersonal relationships as a result of their involvements with me. In turn, I have genuinely enjoyed these relationships, whether or not the sexual act has figured into the equation.
Though all of this sounds very generous and noble, I should also admonish the reader that I am unlikely to be canonized after my death. Arguably, I play my own share of games. Some critics may feel that I lure in certain weaker souls and bend them to my will. Ultimately, however, I have never -- NEVER -- taken advantage of any situation without the full consent of the woman in question. She has surrendered to me, exactly as I knew she would. That I have, on some occasions, exploited her apparent weakness to achieve this end is an undeniable truth. I believe I have had every right to use everything at my disposal to achieve my ends, and that these ends have justified the means taken to attain them. Moreover, I have never crossed the line into abuse, and I have yet to hear from any sub that she got less out of our relationship than I did.
Cerebral Domination, therefore, refers to the way I “get into her head”; how I find the weaknesses and use them to make the sub more submissive. Reduced to the simplest terms, there are things which I (as the Dom) should like a sub to do. Initially, she will do something because I ask (or “order”) her to do it; perhaps later, because she knows it will please me. However, with cerebral Domination, she will do the things I want her to do because she now wants to do them, also. This concept completely revises the old saying, “Your wish is my command”; at this level, the Dom and the sub wish the same thing. And -- strangely enough -- such cerebral tactics do not reduce a sub to the level of a poor, mindless zombie. In fact, my subs invariably become far stronger, rather than weaker; more active, rather than passive. To underscore this argument, I shall close with an excerpt from an e-mail one woman sent me:
“Dearest Don -- I know this sounds weird, but after our last few sessions I feel more empowered than ever. I know that I am now a stronger person, and above all a stronger woman, as a result of meeting you and studying with you. You are a true teacher. Love always, -- J”