Towards a New Definition of Equality

I wanted to muse on concepts of equality within D/s relationships. This would, on first glance, seem to be an oxymoron, but there are some interesting discussions going on among cultural theorists on the definition of equality itself. How do we measure, for instance, gender equality when physically we are simply not equal? Commonly we base ideas of equality on the quality and number of rights granted and the universality of their distribution. There are, however, pitfalls to this. Ideas of equality based on the granting of rights tends to ignore the needs of the few in favour of the many. Rights are usually granted to fulfil the needs of the majority. What if you are someone who has needs that the majority don't have? Exemplars of this problem happen in cases of physical and mental handicap, non-heterosexuals, ethnic and religious minorities, etc. There are feminists within the D/s and BDSM worlds who argue for a re-definition of equality, based on need. This all seems a little like an excursion into overthinking the problem, but the premise is actually quite simple and elegant. Usually, we think of dominants as having more power (i.e. they are more "equal") than subs. But this is because we are basing our concept of equality on acts, not needs. If we were to base our evaluation of equality on levels of need, dominants and submissives don't differ in terms of their level of needs, only in the nature of them. So, a submissive's "need to submit", is as strong as a dominant's "need to dominate". Therefore they are equal. This is a hard concept to grasp because we are so blinded by the semiotics of certain acts, it shades the way we look at and judge those acts. A case in point is the act of penetration. Semiotically, in the vast majority of past and present cultures, penetration is an act of domination, whereas reception (receiving penetration) is an act of submission. This simple assumption has so permeated our consciousnesses that most people find it simply impossible to view it in any other way. But what if we did? What if we viewed the acts of penetrating and engulfing neutrally? Or, what if we viewed the act of envelopment as one of aggression? In plainer language, what if a cunt enveloping, taking in, a cock was considered the act of aggression? We have models for this in nature all around us: phagocytosis, black holes, the very act of devouring anything. Some male submissives definitely see it in this way. And, even within sexuality, we have examples of it: the vagina dentata (the toothed cunt): aggressive, engulfing, devouring. Some might say that the very basis of D/s itself depends on practically feudal models of social structure. I think that, for some people this is true. The appeal of going back to a time of strict gender-role definitions and power hierarchy lies in a rejection of modernity: its seemingly endless complexities and the disturbingly shifting definitions of reality. However, for some of us, who refuse to choose between feminism and being a submissive, this is not what draws us to D/s at all. And for us, we need new definitions of equality. It will require a real and honest evaluation of our own prejudices and cultural biases, and an effort to reset our understanding of meaning of both acts and language. On a lighter note, if you like more traditional definitions of D/s, there are two writers who both write wonderful stories within that model and who, for some reason, haven't ended up on my link list yet - but will: felicia mansur writes very good D/s fiction. her series "The Retreat" is particularly good. Her site is at felicia mansur stories Mackenzie Cross is a dominant who writes D/s fiction as well. His writing is also very good. His site: Mackenzie's Musings The elements of D/s in my stories tend involve people who have D/s tendencies, but don't identify themselves as such, or practice D/s in a formal way. Both the above writers are "lifestyle" writers who write erotica about people within the lifestyle.