As my peers have noted in their articles, this subject, while completely clear to us as we discuss it within our group is somewhat more difficult to express to the community at large. I myself sat on this subject for more than a month (actually, much more) before I finally pounded out the draft you see before you.

In my experience, the conflict we see when we look at relationships that encompass these concepts is one almost entirely of priorities . While both the terms training and romance can indicate the totality of relationships, generally I find that they are more useful as indicators of motivation. Relationships always have a goal, and that goal is usually roughly divided into two extremely broad categories.

The first category is that of a relationship simply for it’s own sake. In this case, the primary purpose of the union is simply to spend time with each other, in the most pleasant way possible. The common idea of the ‘love affair’ falls into this grouping… it exists for itself and to perpetuate itself. Roughly, the goal of these relationships can be summed up as romance.

In contrast then, we have relationships that have a goal for the partnership outside of simply spending time together. These relationships may have as a goal the accumulation of wealth, the creation of many children, to bring together two bloodlines and so on. One of the possible goals in this type of relationship is training.

Of course, many relationships actually mix those categories in various proportions. And it is in the structure of that mixture that there can arise conflict. With all that in mind, let us look at the Dominant/submissive relationship, and how those motivations may cause friction or difficulty.

As we at The Estate use the term, training is exactly what it sounds like… the structured acquisition of skills and mannerisms by the submissive to conform to specific standards of ability and behavior. Training a human is of course radically different than training a dog, or a horse, but the purpose remains exactly the same… there is no need to sugar-coat that aspect of it.

By it’s very definition then, training requires a degree of distance and objectivity on the part of the trainer so that they can evaluate the trainee. More than that, many of the goals of the training may cause transient discomfort or upset in the trainee as he/she becomes adjusted to the new conditions or skills. Even when the trainee is in complete agreement with the goals of the training process, when the difficulties of actually going through that process arise, there may well be a part of them that will balk.

In those circumstances, the trainer must be able to continue the training even in the face of transient discomforts and difficulties. The trainer must be able to harden themselves to resistance, fear, or discomfort… so that both the trainer and the trainee can achieve their goals.

Here of course is where things can get very sticky in short order. It will be assumed for this discussion that the trainer is capable of separating genuine damage and harm from transient discomfort, and a genuine withdrawal of consent or reversal of purpose on the part of the trainee.

Let’s take a fictional example: A trainee has been given the task of polishing the house silver. This task does not come easy to her, so she must spend a considerable amount of her free time accomplishing it. When the time comes to inspect it, it turns out that the job has not been done to the standard. The temptation, seeing that the submissive has genuinely given her ‘best effort’ would be to overlook a minor flaw in the work. One cannot allow her dedication to the task, or her hatred of it, to alter the standard. This simply cannot be done.

Doing the difficult is how we grow stronger, achieving standards we previously could not achieve is how we get better. The most effective thing a trainer can do is to maintain this ability to see past the trainee’s discomfort when needed, to put aside momentary pleas for leniency and stick to the task at hand.

It turns out this is not an easy thing. The good trainers I know are empathic people. They have to be in order to see past the outward face of their charges and to know what is going on inside. That empathy means that they are also often very fond of those training under them – if you do not like someone, it is basically impossible to get deeply enough into their mindset to effect the kind of changes that are often wanted. Objectivity is hard at times like this, and it is no easy thing to maintain, to do what must be done in the face of the tears of someone you consider a friend.

When romance, or love, is involved then this task becomes infinitely more difficult. Taking joy in the tears of one’s lover is not that hard to do for those in our community when it is clearly something that loved one will be thankful for, during a sexual encounter, for example. Take the situation of a physical punishment for failing to achieve a standard. One may be placed in the position of having to inflict physical pain on someone you love, despite the fact that they are already sorry, already know they have to do better, and assure you it will not happen again.

Finding people who will do that, who will do it because they genuinely like to teach, who like to make people better than they were before by their common standard, is a very rare thing. Of the group that will do it, now select out the ones that have the skills needed, the aptitude to know when to push, and when not to push… you are looking at a very small number of ‘trainers’ in this world.

Want to know more about the mind of a trainer? Find anyone who was in the military, ask them about their basic training. Almost universally they will tell you that their Drill Instructor was a bastard, a heartless unfeeling scum without an ounce of compassion or humanity. Then they will tell you that somewhere along the line they realized that their D.I. cared a lot about what was going on with them… he noticed more than they thought he did. A trainer.

If qualified, dedicated trainers who can rise above their emotions when needed are rare and valuable. Then more rare than they are those submissives who genuinely have the ability and drive to be successfully trained to a high level of performance. It takes an extraordinary dedication to the goals of the training to make this work… the trainee must consistently perform at his/her best, proactively assisting in their training, and resisting as much as they can the urge to play upon their trainers humanity.

The BDSM community is home to a large number of submissive men and women for whom the prospect of being ‘trained’ is of great excitement… the very idea of it makes their motor run, if you will forgive the analogy. But only a very small number of those can actually summon the strength needed to do it when it gets difficult. A submissive who enjoys immensely being ‘trained’ to perform a task will often take it as a matter of course that he will not be ‘trained’ if he has a headache, or if he didn’t sleep well the night before, or he is not in the mood. These expectations often persist on the subconscious level, if not the overt.

When placed in a situation of serious training, most tend to lose their resolve rather quickly. For these individuals, their fantasies were best left as that, a fantasy, the reality is simply not something they are equipped to accept or excel at. When they are called to task in a training situation they will quickly become sullen and argumentative, directing anger and annoyance at their trainer. On some level, these trainees feel betrayed, for all their talk previously of wanting to be held to that high standard when the time comes to do it over and over and get it right.

An example: many submissives have fantasies of sleeping at the foot of their dominant’s bed. They crave the feeling of submission and of ownership. Yet, how many of those who desire it routinely do it? How many of those who yearn to sleep on the floor have done so enough that they are happy and comfortable there? Very very few. After a few nights, when the back pains hit (until their body adjusts) many of these submissives will gladly give up the ritual, and their dominants will allow it.

To accept these discomforts, to understand that they are a necessary part of the training, and to strive to make sure that they show their gratitude, these are the marks of those few who can and will achieve incredible things. As with any other road to excellence, the person who wishes to excel must drive themselves as hard as their trainers.

A BDSM trainer can no more transform a submissive single-handed than a gymnastics coach can turn a reluctant student into an Olympic contender. That drive must come from inside the student. In order to succeed, trainees must accept nothing but their personal best. And in those circumstances when the trainer steps in, and expects the trainee to do the hard thing, enforces the standard, asks for a little more, pushes a little harder, it is the responsibility of the trainee to maintain a positive attitude, be grateful, respectful and proactive.

It becomes obvious then that the drive to perfection must be strong in both trainer and trainee. Their resolve must be without question, and their eyes must be firmly locked on their goal. A trainer is not, nor should be, a substitute for strength or willpower. The trainer is an objective mirror, and the voice that guides the submissive on the path.

How often in this community do we hear the lament from submissives that “he doesn’t train me anymore”, or “he is lax and slack with me now”. This is a legitimate complaint, and many times the problem is indeed with a dominant who has no desire to do the work, but it is not as common a case as you think.

At least as often the problem lies with the submissive in question. If every training exercise is met with a bad attitude, a plea to put it off till later, or a complaint about the task, why then would the dominant bother? If the merest discomfort, that is not immediately rewarded with some kinky play, leads to a surly tone and a guilt trip from the submissive in question, where then is the desire for training?

Of course, the motivations I mentioned can mix… for example a submissive may fall in love with a dominant, and her with him. Because of that bond, he wishes to become what she feels is an ‘ideal’ submissive. That would require training. So in the context of a ‘romantic’ relationship, it is possible that the romance will lead to training. This is, in fact, the most common progression of BDSM relationships.

However, this is the most difficult configuration. You have a dominant who is not a trainer, attempting to train someone she is deeply in love with, who is doing this, suffering this, for her sake. Is it any wonder that the vast majority of such attempts peter out, eventually settling down to a few rules and polite words. Since this is generally a happy state of affairs for the two people involved, I don’t know that we could classify it as a failure because they are happy. But if the goal was to achieve a high level of consistent performance, then they did not reach their goal.

A note to prospective trainers: I don’t know of any reason for a trainer to fight to train a submissive. Being trained to a standard of excellence that will be far above those of the community at large is it’s own reward, it’s own fetish, it’s own goal, and it is a privilege. If you are training someone who resents that training (or resents you for doing it) then stop. However, be aware that an occasional skirmish is a sign of spirit and fire, which are valuable qualities in and of themselves.

- Soulhuntre

Training vs. Romance: The View From The North Wing

I outlined this piece no fewer than four times. I was trying to eliminate the tone of inherent judgment. I’ve realized that is not going to be possible. "Vs." implies contest, and by virtue of selecting one method over the other I have made an endorsement. At least, I see it for what it is and am honest about it. This article then is about the primary difference between training and romance, which one I selected, and how that shapes my relationships. The primary difference between a D/s relationship based upon training and one based upon romance is motivation. For the purposes of this discussion motivation will be used to mean why you do what you do and action to be what you do. I am motivated to do my job (primarily) by the salary I receive to do it. You can think of motivation as cause and action as effect. It is useful to note that the reinforcement which serves as a motivation can follow the action it was intended to produce.

In a D/s relationship based on romance the primary motivation is love/affection, which is a powerful motivator but has strong emotional implications. The most obvious example of romantic motivation is "I do ‘this’ because I love them and want to make them happy". This inherently ties the quality of your D/s relationship to the quality and/or quantity of your affection for your partner. Dissatisfaction with the D/s aspect easily takes on broader implications and is taken to mean dissatisfaction with the relationship and emotions involved. It becomes impossible to ask for something your partner is less than happy about giving because who has the right to say my feelings and happiness are more important than yours. That is the passive aggressive playground made up by phrases that start out "If you really love me, you will …." There is no high ground there. Emotion, despite what we like to believe, is not quantifiable. Any method of measurement would be subjective at best. Which is why emotional endeavors are usually evaluated on the "It’s the thought that counts" model, wherein the evaluation is based on effort not results. As long as effort is present, the performance is deemed passing. The evaluation having less to do with the actual performance quality than the fact that it happened at all. Bottom line, if love is your motivation, it is not possible to adequately justify requiring someone to do something just because it will make you happy if it isn’t going to make them equally happy. In a D/s context, what’s left is a no win situation. Each partner saying, "I want you to be happy". The Dom unable to ask the sub for anything that doesn’t make the sub happy to give and the sub unable to make the Dom happy because the Dom isn’t getting what they really want (even if the Dom is getting all they are asking for).

In a D/s relationship based on training the primary motivation is commitment to a common goal, the best D/s dynamic you can have. A common goal requires that you pursue it without a personal agenda. The very mutual and specific nature of the goal prevents any skewing of the situation for personal benefit from actually being conducive to the stated goal. Each person has a choice to make, whole hearted commitment to the the stated goal or commitment to their personal agenda. You are either working for the common goal or you are not. It is that simple and that clear. Even if it is not what you want to hear or do, you each know when something is good for the dynamic. The nature of the stated goal obligates each person to get behind the things that are good for the dynamic and eliminate the things that are not. In a D/s context, this usually involves adding things, like rituals, a covenant, accountability, and a formal review procedure, which take your D/s from "when the mood strikes" to an inherent part of your interactions. These contribute to a better dynamic by: placing a certain amount of D/s in your daily interaction with your partner; creating a set of examined guidelines which cover each person’s rights and responsibilities; giving recourse to each person should another fail to live up to their responsibilities; creating a period of amnesty where it is not only acceptable but expected to be critical and vocal regarding the relationship.

For me, D/s is a graded endeavor. There are definitive levels of achievement. There is an unacceptable level of performance. Effort is not enough to make the grade. When I was figuring out what I wanted from my D/s, I discovered not only could I separate love, sex and D/s, but it worked better when I did. Separation of these elements allows clarity not possible without the distinctions. It enables me to have healthy, productive D/s relationships with people I do not love. It relieves me of the compulsion to justify my D/s by saying I love my partner. It enables me to deal with the real issues instead of the emotional icing. Basing my D/s relationships on training is the most compatible structure for what I expect to both give and get in my relationships. I am looking for the best possible D/s dynamic we are capable of. That means effort, on either part, isn’t enough. I expect to create a covenant and live by it. Sometimes, that means doing things that neither of us wants to do. I am obligated to make sure we do things the right way, no matter how tempting the easy way may be. Because my D/s is training based, my first priority is achieving the best possible D/s dynamic. The best is not what you get when you aren’t giving your best, settle, make excuses or let things slide. This commitment to the dynamic requires that we separate our feelings and the facts. Loving my partners doesn’t stop me from giving harsh punishment if earned, and because they know my D/s isn’t about love, they wouldn’t expect it to. Punishment or praise are not judgments of, or reactions to the feelings we have for each other. They are component parts of the dynamic we are building. There is a wonderful, liberating knowledge in that. My affection is not conditional to their compliance with my expectations. My collar, however, is. But, my collar is not about love, it’s about D/s and our covenant.

- Sir C

Essential Estate Structure: Merit

First, let’s clarify our terms for the purposes of this discussion.

• S/M: Sado-Masochism. The inflicting and/or receiving of physical and/or emotional pain for the Fulfillment of (presumably both) partners.
• B/D: Bondage and Discipline. Usually sexualized play. Often, but not by definition, an expression of D/S.
• D/S: Dominance and Submission. This will be the focus of the discourse. D/S does not necessarily involve the above definitions of S/M or B/D. It is a power dynamic, and the absolute foundation of Estate training.

S/M and B/D are expressions of D/S for Estate purposes. D/S is the foundation, the structure on which training is built. It is not an excuse for B/D play, or S/M exchange. B/D and S/M may be entirely missing from a servant’s training, if the Trainer feels it is appropriate. BD/SM are tools with which to reinforce, reward, punish or correct trainee behavior not an end unto itself.

Merit vs. Charity

To follow this line of reasoning, I am going to use a phrase coined by Soulhuntre “Merit over Charity”. This idea suggests the somewhat radical concept that what a submissive does actually matters.

There is a fallacy at work, a double standard. This somewhat confusing situation comes from fear and insecurity. Conventional wisdom suggests that the only proper and acceptable place for disapproval is play in that actual disapproval could cause such damaging emotional consequences, that, like liquid oxygen, it should never be handled by laymen. Somehow, submissives have become such fragile creatures that any hint of genuine disapproval or displeasure is as dangerous as a sledgehammer. Expectations are possibly lethal.

If there can be no disapproval, there can be no evaluation. If I cannot evaluate the performance of a trainee, than what she does doesn’t actually matter. Pass or fail, good or bad, she gets a pat on the head, praise and attention. Which means that the praise is empty, and therefore worthless as is any reward garnered for said “performance”. Which renders both Trainer and trainee empty, worthless playacting at best, bitterly compromised and frustrated at worst.

As a trainee, a submissive, a slave would you really want your efforts to mean nothing? Would you want your Master’s praise and approval to mean nothing? Would an empty compliment for a half hearted job be enough? For most, the answer seems to be “Yes.” Not here. Not ever. But to strive for praise which means something, a risk has to be taken. The risk of failure. The specter of failure looms so high and dark in the minds and hearts of some applicants that they shut their eyes and settle for mediocre existence’s. No real authority, no real service, no real achievement. An Estate trainee has to risk disapproval, disappointment, and shame… because what she does matters.

Service vs. Play

There is nothing wrong with play. The Estate, however, is not weekend entertainment for bored subs. This is simply the wrong environment for the applicant looking for a “good time.” The Estate invests considerable time and effort into applicants and trainees. The servant who wishes to be more desirable to a prospective Dominant, the slave who has been sent to be trained up to his Mistress’ specifications, the submissive who simply wants to be as sharp and effective as she can for herself. These are appropriate motivations. Not to say there is no room for BD/SM- far from it. But the attention of a trainer, even negative attention, is a reward. It means you have earned enough time and respect for an Estate trainer to try to help you improve, or that you have merited attention for some positive reason.

The advantage that trainees to the Estate have is simple. We don’t love you.

Training vs. Romance

I know it sounds harsh and it was meant to. But it’s an important idea to address up front.

At the Estate, we have hopes and respect for trainees. If we did not think an applicant could succeed, we would not accept him. Simple. We come to care for our friends, the extended family which our trainees can become. Your health, your welfare, even your happiness are our concern.

But we are not doing this because we love you. Many people cannot understand submission without love. That’s fine, The Estate is not for everyone. Neither is the Army. But both the Estate and the Army have certain ideas in common. Standards are not compromised by affection. It is hard to express dissatisfaction with someone with whom you are in love. The temptation to compromise is a hard one to resist. And when you love someone, you are tempted to bend over backwards in order to keep them, in order to get them not to leave. This puts the power in their hands to some degree, and creates the situation of a dominant losing his authority in order to keep a submissive and everything falls apart.

So we are looking back to Merit vs. Charity again. Would a trainee rather be told she is worthy of a collar because love happens to be smiling on her and her Mistress? Or would she rather know that she has it because she earned it, and renews that privilege every day? Which is worth more? Love is fickle. Respect is earned.

As Sir C once said: “This is what we are about”.

And we are not for everyone.

- Flagg

No apologies

When we formed The Estate, it was with the specific goal of codifying what we like into a structured, well thought-out and consistent set of rules and guidelines that could be used all the time. Our feeling is, it should never be necessary to go outside the system… in other words, the system needed to be flexible enough to handle anything that might happen in the course of our day.

A common statement to see and hear in the BDSM community is that one cannot be Dom/sub 24 hours a day, or ’24/7′ as it is called… the specific idea is that “sometimes the real world gets in the way.” This is immediately distressing to me because the implications are clearly that somehow my Dominance is not part of my ‘real world.’

Dominance, to me, is power and authority. The ability to compel or inspire the compliance of those around me. This power and authority is real and as such is absolutely part of the ‘real world’ and my ‘real life.’ Reality cannot ‘intrude’ or ‘interfere’ with my Dominance anymore than a rock or a tree can interfere with the ocean or the stars. My Dominance may be affected by other factors in my life, and it may be altered by situations as they occur, but it is never rendered any less real by that fact.

Thus, in creating a set of rules that could be lived day-in and day-out, it became important to recognize that authority was completely separate from ritual. Why was this so important? Because rituals are not always desired or practical, but power and authority must remain intact. The answer was protocols.

A simple and fast definition of the protocols, and an example of their implications is given below – you will be able to find a much more in depth set of rules for these modes in the future on the site:

High Protocol (formal)

High conforms most closely to the ‘ideal’ of service we read about in the BDSM erotic literature. The submissive may be required to refer to themselves in the third-person, and full titles will be used when referring to a dominant, no furniture is permitted, and the submissive will always be in one of the Estate positions.

An example exchange in High would be…

Dominant – “How much longer will you take to clean the hallway?”

Submissive – “Sir, it will take this girl another 30 minutes.”

Middle Protocol (semi-formal)

In Mid, we see a workable but still distinctly BDSM environment. There is still much formality in the manners and speech, but there is a flexibility that makes it possible for the submissive in question to still display her personality. Middle protocol is flexible enough that a submissive may still be a companion in this mode. Generally, Mid would be a good mode to use when taking your submissive out for a night on the town. Furniture is permitted in Mid, but the submissive will always be in an Estate position.

An example exchange in Mid would be…

Dominant – “How much longer will you take to clean the hallway?”

Submissive – “It will take me about another half hour, Sir.”

Low Protocol (informal)

Basically, be polite and generally respectful and all should be well. Low protocol is the one that requires the most attention to be paid on the part of the submissive. The guidelines are few, and generally fluctuate based on the mood of the Dominant(s) around at the time.

An example exchange in Low would be…

Dominant – “How much longer will you take to clean the hallway?”

Submissive – “Well, that depends, are you gonna stop hitting me with that pillow?”.

If you think about it a bit you can see how useful this is in providing structure, even during those times that seem most relaxed. Even more interesting, they allow the submissive to have a good grasp of what is expected of her at the different ‘stages’ of formality. You can simply say “This evening will be spent in Mid” and everyone knows exactly what is going to be the norm of action and carriage.

This three-mode system is simple enough to be remembered, but flexible enough to take the stress and strain of daily life, reinforcing to the submissive that no matter what is happening there are some rules and standards… providing them with a firm groundwork.

As a final note, almost all BDSM relationships have these types of ‘modes’ in one way or the other, if you think about it, yours probably does as well.

- Soulhuntre

The West Wing Perspective on Protocols:
Intent and Practice

To clarify my terms:

There may be some confusion as to what a Protocol is- I would
first like to point out what a protocol is not. Protocol is not
ritual, although it may contain ritual elements.

Ritual is a behavior, repeated by situation or on demand. The
purpose of ritual is the ritual itself, and the feelings it
creates in the submissive and/or the dominant. It typically does
not vary normally the perfection of the ritual is its own goal.

Protocol is not etiquette, although it may overlap in
its teaching and intent.

Etiquette is proper self expression, a refined and
specialized form of communication – the ability to communicate
to others in a fashion which the Dominant finds pleasing and
appropriate. The scope of the absolute importance of proper
etiquette and good manners is beyond the scope of this article,
but I’m sure to address the West Wing perspective on that in
time. (Actually, its inevitable.)

Protocol is not merely the following of orders, or the
anticipation of desire. Although it reinforces such things.

Protocol rules are the guidelines which the strong willed and
intelligent submissive uses to make decisions in the best
interests of her Dominant. It is a structure outlining
appropriate behavior and action. It is a set of rules which
illustrate the Dominants desires, needs and priorities. A
well-structured Protocol allows confidence on the part of the
submissive and the Dominant, and helps take D/S outside the
bedroom and into everyday life.

The first and toughest question of designing a Protocol is
the question:

"What do you want?"

Tougher than it looks. (At least, it was for me.) Took some
thought.

My concept of dominance is a 24/7 structure. However, I have
little interest in moment to moment micro-managing, repeating
myself, or servants without initiative, drive or backbone. A
proper structure is part of the answer. I applied the Old Guard
concept of three degrees of Protocol: Low (3rd), Middle (2nd)
and High (1st). Low and Middle have a Formal and Informal form,
to increase its versatility

Low Protocol:

For day to day life, I wish servants in my service to be able
to interact normally with the rest of the world, and to some
extent, with me. There are too many real world uses for a
competent representative to cripple their social effectiveness
with burdensome rituals. This does not change the status of
their service to me, nor does it strip them of the reminders of
their service that are often so important to them but it does
demand that such rituals are subtle, and often invisible to the
world at large.

So, when designing that structure, I had to decide what I
wanted it to teach:

• A continuous reminder of service and its
  responsibilities
• Permitted casual behavior, yet with specific
  boundaries.
• Recognition of station, orders, demands and requests
  in an invisible and unobtrusive fashion.
• Behavior which reflects my intentions and desired
  interaction on a personal and professional level
• Awareness of accountability, despite the temptations
  offered by casual behavior and independence.

Low Protocol is often the most difficult to master for the
trainee, because it offers many of the illusions, comforts and
distractions of freedom, yet accountability and responsibility
does not end during these times. It has the least moment to
moment guidance, and often the greatest margin for error.

Middle Protocol:

Most often used in public scene clubs and play situations, I
need to change the degree of focus and priorities of the servant
in question. It is perhaps the most classical of my Protocols,
one that people would most easily identify as BDSM. Considered a
"Performance" Protocol, I needed it to teach the servant how to:

• Prioritize decisions in the appropriate context
• The time and place for degrees of casual behavior
• Consistent ground rules of action and responsibility
  
• Awareness and anticipation of my needs, wants, and
  desires- and those of other respected Dominants in my
  company as a priority
• Focus on BDSM priorities, no matter how long or
  strenuous the time spent in Middle Protocol

Most BDSM activities are executed in this form but it is
merely another facet of the structure. Service, authority and
accountability do not diminish when someone is eased down from
Middle to Low Only the expression of it. There is no "Off Time"

High Protocol:

The expectations and requirements of High Protocol are most
exacting.

• Complete attention and focus, no matter what the
  distractions.
• Absolute and instantaneous obedience, without delay,
  hesitation or question.
• Decision-making and priorities are NOT part of High
  Protocol; the servants wants, needs and desires are
  suspended.
• All extraneous movement, speech, and thought are
  unacceptable. If First Protocol is in effect, concentration
  is demanded.
• Awareness that every move, answer and behavior is
  being carefully scrutinized and judged.

Normally, my High Protocol is used for short periods for
instruction or amusement, or longer periods for punishment
purposes.

Each of the Protocols has its own codex of speech, posture,
and behavior, but I am not going to list them here. I do not
wish to distract from the purpose of Protocol with the
details of my particular preferences and fetishes.

These guidelines are in effect even when I am not present. In
fact, that is very much the purpose of them. If one of my
servants is out shopping, she is naturally in Low Protocol. If
she runs into a respected dominant of my acquaintance, her
Protocol becomes Low Formal. If that dominant takes her home to
work or serve, she will step up to Middle because she knows that
is appropriate behavior. If that Dominant becomes angry or
requires absolute attention, she will step up to High Protocol
until released down to a lower one.

With further education, I can (And have) send that same
servant to that same dominant with instructions, which quickly
and simply dictate my expectations of her behavior:

"Middle Informal, speech in Low Formal, and if he makes
sexual use of you, up to High so he does not have to concern
himself with your opinions or preferences. If he chooses to, he
can take you down from there."

The West Wing has five guidelines which carry through ALL the
protocols, ideas that I expect a servant to keep constantly in
mind at all times. No matter what the situation, these rules
apply:

1. Good Manners are always appropriate
2. Gratitude is always appropriate
3. Acknowledge a request, order or mistake
4. When in doubt, Ask. When in need, Request.
5. Maximum amount of information, minimum amount of
   words. (Ken’s Law)

Understanding of these guidelines, combined with a working
knowledge of the protocols allows me great confidence in my
servant, for I know that I will be represented well. Protocol
can be changed by order or by situation, and allows a servant to
never be without guidance and never be lost as to what her
priorities and responsibilities are.

- Flagg

1/19/99
Be Very Polite

Punishment, Correction and Conditioning in the Shaping of Human Tools

Introduction

I am a fairly active participant in the discussion of the methods, philosophies and issues that surround and permeate the BDSM community in a number of mediums. Several topics come up often and seem to be in the process of dividing the BDSM community in a mild way; the concept of training is one of them and closely related to that is the concept of punishment.

As part of my personal work as well as my association with the training facility known as The Estate I have developed a number of opinions and methodologies to deal with training and correction. After discussing these thoughts in the various forums in shortened form I finally decided to place my thoughts in a longer form. This is not intended to be a how-to manual for punishment; rather I simply wish to discuss some of the issues and concepts surrounding the topic.

It is important for you to be aware that I have no special training myself in any formal sense for these topics. I hold no doctorate degree in psychology or neurobiology; I am not a therapist nor am I an education professional. What I present here is the result of my research and my experience as a trainer and a teacher over the years.

Additionally I want to apologize in advance if this reads rather dryly. I felt it was important for me to be clear and concise in discussing my ideas and this leads to a rather technical sounding presentation.

What is he talking about?

For the purposes of this document I would like to take a moment and define the core terms I will use. These represent the dictionary definitions of several sources as well as some clarification for the specific context of training.

Punishment (noun): A penalty or consequence imposed as a result of an action or failure to act. The opposite of a reward.

In its simplest form punishment can be thought of as the opposite of a reward. It is a form of negative reinforcement that is imposed either naturally by a situation or deliberately by someone who wishes to express disapproval.

In the context of training it often has as its goal the alteration of the perceptions and responses of its target to make substantive changes in their thoughts or actions in the future. This brings us to our next term… correction.

Correction (noun): Punishment intended to improve or rehabilitate.

As we can see then correction is punishment with a specific goal.

Response (noun): The reaction of an individual to a given situation or stimulus. This reaction can be internal as a series of thoughts or emotions or it can be physical in the form of a specific action. This response mayor may not be automatic.

Response is a generic term for my discussion because I will often not make a distinction between the alterations of someone’s thoughts or someone’s actions simply because often the principals apply equally well to both.

Conditioning (noun): The process by which a subject comes to associate a desired response with a specific stimulus.

In other words, conditioning is another word for some types of training… most applicable to those areas of training that can be reduced to a simple set of stimuli.

Reflex (adjective): An automatic or involuntary response to a stimulus.

It is important to understand the distinction between a reflexive response and a simple response. A reflexive response does not go through the conscious decision making process and may be limited in the total amount of complexity it can correctly evaluate.

Training (verb): To accustom or condition to a mode of behavior or performance.

You can see now how the terms begin to build on each other. It would be accurate to say that training is the education of a submissive in the desired responses and behaviors. This education may include conditioning and punishment.

Discipline (noun): Training expected to produce a specific pattern of behavior, especially training aimed at moral or mental improvement. Alternately discipline is used to refer to the result of such training.

Contrast this with conditioning which concerns itself primarily with a clearer response/stimulus pattern or reflex. Discipline would be in an area such as self control or keeping silent whereas conditioning generally has more to do with physical issues such as posture.

The debate in the community

Punishment is a controversial topic within the BDSM community as is its closely related cousins of service and training. The core debate seems to revolve around two separate lines of thought that I will summarize below along with my responses.

The ‘perfect obedience’ proposal is that the submissive in a relationship naturally has as their goal obedience to their dominants wants and desires. Thus, they will always endeavor to obey and if at any time they fail in that task it is an innocent mistake or momentary weakness. Such a submissive does not, they may claim, need to be “treated like a child” to achieve the goals of the dominant.

It follows then in this line of thought that all that is required to make a correction would be for the submissive to be made aware of where/how they have failed and they will then correct themselves in the future. A secondary argument is made that the knowledge of their failure will result in self punishment because they will be distraught at the idea of having failed their dominant.

For those cases where the dominant has as a requirement a set of responses that are either already present in the submissive or easily modified through conscious thought this dynamic will suffice; for those responses a dominant may demand that are reflexive there is reason to believe this will be insufficient.

While the self punishment of the submissive is a real phenomena and the submissive in question will no doubt feel significant anguish in their failure this is not always a useful means of correcting the response. It is fairly common for humans to misinterpret the cause of their own failure or the exact nature of that failure. Any change in the responses of the submissive resulting from a mistaken or misplaced self punishment would then not be in line with the desired response.

The issue of maturity that is mentioned is a red herring assuming that punishment and correction are actions society reserves only for children or the immature and this is clearly false.

“My dominant should want me as I am and not change me!” is another common refrain that shows up in several forms. It is clear that in the majority of relationships there is no training desired or required. The reasons for this may simply be that the dominant has no specific responses in mind or that they are in line with the responses already present in the submissive.

In either case this is a perfectly acceptable relationship dynamic. It does not however negate that there are other possible valid relationship dynamics that may require the substantial alteration of the responses of the submissive.

One common rebuttal when this is pointed out is to question why the dominant would have entered a relationship with a submissive that required substantial alteration. The answer is simple and clear; this submissive offered value that exceeded the cost of her training (not speaking specifically monetarily, though that may be one situation).

How people respond and act

While the internals of the human mind are still beyond our complete understanding several factors have combined to allow us to model its behavior with some accuracy. This model is the synthesis of what has been learned from studying the physical structure of the brain and those who are trying to duplicate its functions for use in robotic systems that need to learn and adapt. Below is the model of human responses I use in my training programs, for simple reference I tend to think of this as the “Black-Box” model.

In the Black-Box model of response behavior I consider that humans tend to encode repetitive tasks or conclusions into their ‘hardware’ and that from the point of view of the conscious mind the inner workings of these become opaque or unknown. In engineering such a system is known as a “Black Box” indicating that its functions are unknown.

The human brain appears to be a large network of neurons that are free to form connections to each other arbitrarily in three dimensions. There is some evidence that as we learn these connections between the cells of our brain become physically thicker and stronger in some directions and not so in others, forming a map of our knowledge.

When faced with a situation that requires a response the human mind seems to have two fundamentally different ways to choose that response:

• If a pre-existing reflex exists that can be used to handle the situation automatically then the mind will simply execute that response. Often this is done without interrupting the conscious mind or decision making abilities.
• Any situation or stimulus that doesn’t have a reflex or is too complex to be handled by a reflex is processed by the conscious mind. While the conscious mind has an incredible ability to make decisions about handling novel or unknown situations it is slow compared to reflexes and there is a limit to how much it can handle.

The real power of the mind seems to lie in the ability for the conscious mind to eventually shape reflexes by creating and strengthening connections in the brain.. This process allows us to function more efficiently over time and represents an important aspect of learning.

Think of it this way – the more you do something the more engrained those pathways in your mind become. The more deeply those pathways are engrained the less you have to “think” about using them.

An example is the act of catching a ball:

When you first tried it you were slow and clumsy. You got hit with it or dropped the ball often. Your brain had to attempt to solve complex spatial relations calculations in real time and simultaneously control your arm and body to make the catch. Your conscious mind was not up to the task because it is slow, very slow considering the speeds of the world we live in.

Over time you got better at it. The reason for this is simple, more and more of the processing was being encoded into your brains physical structure by the process of learning. As those items were thus encoded they became a subroutine or reflex that your conscious mind could call upon. These reflexes run much, much faster than your conscious mind. The more that gets encoded the more your brain has left to handle the rest of the problem.

In the end, the entire process of catching a ball became automated. Once that happens you can catch balls all day while using your conscious mind to do a multitude of other tasks like listening to music or holding a conversation – or making decisions about where to throw the ball once you catch it to win a baseball game. It goes further; once you have that reflex then it becomes generalized. Not only can you catch a baseball but your body will quickly react to catch a wide range of “semi ball like objects”.

In this way we become more efficient at complex tasks over time. Driving is another example many of us can relate too. It seemed complex and overwhelming in the beginning but later on it is easy. When the conditions on the road become significantly different than what we are used to, like when it is snowing or raining, the reflexes gradually lose their ability to help us and driving becomes a difficult task again.

It is easy to see how these concepts apply to reflexes that involve physical actions, but is the same true for more complex decisions? It seems that it is though the experimental verification is somewhat lacking.

In my experience, complex decisions and moral/ethical concepts go through a similar process of imprinting or learning. I know that for myself when I was younger I spent quite a lot of time weighing the aspects of my actions in the context of my developing morals and ethics. Over time I spend much less time on such things – those responses I would find morally objectionable simply do not occur to me on the conscious level as possibilities for action.

For these complex types of decisions and situations then discipline is the more applicable strategy. Whether internally or externally imposed discipline can be used to imprint complex responses into the brain. These responses are slower than reflexes and more subject to conscious modification or control but significantly more flexible and still provide an efficiency increase over completely conscious processing.

An example is chess:

When learning to play chess one finds quickly at the lower skill levels that it is a bad idea to leave your King exposed to the front. As the number of games lost to this situation mounts many players develop a distinct reluctance to make any move that will expose their King to the front because of this. We may say that this player is ‘disciplined’ in that they do not make casual mistakes leaving their King open when tired or distracted.

The interesting part of this is that there are many situations where it is perfectly safe and advantageous to make such a move. As ones skill increases they may know this intellectually but they often will retain a sense of unease at the prospect. This unease is not beyond conscious control the way a reflex generally is… but the power of the imprint remains noticeable.

There are many possible situations where this type of discipline can be useful in training the submissive to serve optimally. It can often be used to instill instincts and tendencies that can improve performance and attitude. Discipline can be instilled to combat a natural tendency to laziness or to overcome an innate shyness for example. Most importantly discipline can be used to help the submissive control inappropriate emotional responses.

Just like conditioned reflexes, discipline helps the mind create automatic or semi-automatic responses that can leave the conscious mind clear to make decisions. Self discipline to control panic can go a long way to helping someone respond appropriately in a dangerous situation.

The use of punishment and reward

Punishment is simply the negative consequence of a response. In that sense it does not necessarily have a purpose or goal; however the most common use of punishment in BDSM is as a component of the training or disciplining of the submissive.

In BDSM the goal of training is to alter the responses of the submissive so that they more closely match the desires of the dominant. The range of areas where such responses might be controlled is limited only by the scope of the relationship itself but can include everything from the smallest physical act to the overall philosophical view the submissive applies to moral decisions.

The applicability of punishment in training, and the type of punishment you use will depend largely on whether the change falls into the broad categories of conditioning or discipline.

It is my experience that in cases of disciplinary problems it is useful for the punishment to emphasize the mental/emotional/moral aspects of the transgression. In this circumstance the punishment should also be accompanied by an expression of disapproval or reprimand. A physical component to this punishment may well be useful to bring home the reprimand or to focus the submissive on the issue at hand but the physical alone will rarely bring about the change you desire.

The flip side of the coin would be a failure on the part of the submissive to exhibit the desired conditioned response. As conditioned responses generally bypass the conscious mind and are rarely affected by things like motivation, dedication or discipline it is not often useful to emphasize reprimand or judgment in association with this type of failure.

Reward is the opposite of punishment and may be used in conjunction with it. A reward is a positive consequence that is earned by the submissive when the proper response is manifested. Reward is often particularly effective at the bonding of responses to stimulus when there was no previous connection at all to that stimulus.

There are primarily two types of situations where reward will be effective:

• When it is more practical to introduce the response first and then attach the stimulus to it afterward.
• When the response is one that is primarily conscious in nature.

Looking at these we can see how reward applies to the classic example of Pavlov’s dog experiments. It would have been completely inefficient to ring the bell and then punish the dogs each time they did not salivate. The number of ‘misses’ would have been high enough to result in the association of the bell with punishment.

Similarly it is often more efficient to create rewards for the conscious or semi-conscious responses associated with disciplinary issues. The situations that require disciplinary responses are often outside those that could be completely predicted at the time of training; this is what differentiates them from reflexes. Often the conscious mind will go the ‘extra mile’ to seek maximum reward but may well accept a minimum response if that will suffice to avoid punishment.

An example of reward:

The classic reward example in BDSM is orgasm triggering. If we consistently associate a stimulus (typically a spoken word) with a reward (orgasm) then over time it is easy to create an orgasm as a response to that trigger. It is extremely difficult to create this type of positive response in any other manner.

An example of punishment:

As a martial arts instructor one of the things I must teach is the proper method of positioning ones body to be able to defend against an incoming blow. Of this, one of the hardest things to instill in adults and children alike is that they must keep their hands up to be effective with our style. If they drop their hands then they will be vulnerable and they will be hit in the face.

I can explain this to them. I can show this to them. I can praise them for keeping their hands up (reward)

After all that, a portion of those people will still drop their hands during a sparring session because they feel faster or more nimble in that position.

Are these adults immature? No. Are they stupid? No. Do they lack respect for me as their teacher? No. Do they lack respect for our Sensei? No. Do they lack dedication? No.

What is the cause of the problem then? Simple; they are dealing with a complex and often unfamiliar situation that is overwhelming their conscious minds ability to process. The result of this is that their mind is “farming out” responsibility for some of their responses to deeper reflexes or instincts to free up conscious attention to handle the problems of defense and response. In other words, they have had to allow some things to go on “auto pilot”.

Another possibility is also seen. They already have reflexes or neural pathways that encode a different response to this problem. Maybe it is a response ingrained by a previous Sensei or style. In this case, under the stress and complexities of combat they may simply not have the available concentration to over-ride the reflex and do everything else needed of them.

In my experience, a large portion of these students will not alter that response until they get hit in the face a few times (punishment) by their opponent. This punishment drastically raises the priority of altering that response or forming a new one and they will assign much more conscious brain power to making that change.

Rewarding them for keeping their hands up does not fix this problem nearly as efficiently as the negative re-enforcement of being hit in the face for keeping their hands down.

The importance of consistency

The value of consistency in punishment is one that comes up fairly often in its own right. So I think it deserves a small section all its own.

Generally speaking consistency in the application of punishment is crucial in the creation or maintenance of a conditioned response. By its nature conditioning is based on consistent application of reward or punishment. Once the response is conditioned it is possible to become more inconsistent without significantly degrading the response.

For disciplinary situations complete consistency may be less crucial. In circumstances where a pattern of behavior is being changed though disciplinary methods sometimes it is useful to forego punishment or reprimand. This is often considered mercy or leniency and is in itself a powerful form of manipulation.

In all cases it is important that the submissive realize that a failure to apply punishment was a decision on the part of the dominant, not that the dominant either didn’t notice or didn’t care about the infraction.

An experiment

One of the commands in my training program is “drop”. When the command to “drop” is heard the submissive should instantly assume a kneeling position. This is not something they should think about or question, it is intended as an instant and unconditional response.

Obviously, only try this experiment at your own risk!

You could try to instill this response into your submissive with a reward system. Say by giving them praise or a kiss when she drops at your command. Remember though, it must be an instant reaction to count.

Once you think they have it, begin adding distractions to the situation. Slip the command into a conversation or while you are giving other commands. Try it while she is holding a cup of water.

In the vast majority of cases you will notice that the response time becomes much longer as distractions are given. For responses of this level of complexity it seems that the reward is not sufficiently connected to the action to form a strong bond; unlike the above example of an orgasm which is a simple instantaneous act.

Now try it with a punishment trigger. Take some time to issue the command to “drop” when you are close to your submissive. When you issue the command if there is any hesitation at all then apply the punishment. I find that a riding crop is a fine tool for this purpose.

In a short time you will probably see that the negative reinforcement has had a much stronger associative effect than the reward did. It is not always true but my experience has shown it often is.

Conclusion

My goal with this article is to provide some information and a potentially useful framework to those within the community who feel that training, conditioning and punishment may be useful in their relationship. Hopefully I have done that.

These methods have been used in one form or another for as long as humans have had social interactions and they clearly have a powerful potential to shape the actions of the submissive that is being trained.

I feel also that they have an important role in combating some of the current trends in BDSM. I am speaking specifically about the trend to demand less and less of those who chose to serve. Generally the justification for the lowering of those standards and demands is that it is not possible to act to a high standard all the time, that it is too difficult or something that is possible only in fictional novels.

I will submit for your consideration that high standards of behavior are extremely difficult when training and discipline are removed. That it is the removal of conditioning and training in an attempt to civilize BDSM that is resulting in the conclusion that they are unattainable.

For my house I know that it would simply not be possible to display what I consider correct responses if one had only their conscious mind to rely on. There are details of body positioning, tone of voice and a thousand other details that need to be constantly adhered to; they would take up so much time consciously obeying that there would be no capacity left to do anything useful!

As training and discipline make more and more of those responses and patterns automatic, the amount of conscious effort needed to comply drops until eventually what was a seemingly impossible set of standards becomes second nature.

Soulhuntre The East Wing 1.25.2002 [Draft 3]

 

These are based on the terms as I understand them now… they may not be strictly accurate in their origin… but the definitions as I give them for our use are completely so.

Note: kwazoki, nobility, dominant, alpha

These terms represent those who aspire to rule others in some way, or those equipped to do so. Generally speaking, these people have a strongly developed alphaness inside them.

It is interesting to note that there is much variation inside this group, in fact, more variation than in many others. We are speaking basically of those people who are rulers by nature. The ability to rule, to lead others to your will, to inspire others to desire to serve you is a rare one.

Group 1: Daimyo, Lord, Master (King is the Estate piece definition)

This is the head of a household or domain. Technically, a daimyo is an example of the nobility in European terms, though the Japanese concepts are somewhat in conflict. For us, we will consider this group as members of the kwazoki with a calling to establish dominion over some place.

Those called to be daimyo are often also powerfully called to the responsibilities that come with domain, enjoying the challenges and rewards that come from taking primary responsibility for the sweeping choices that so often effect the paths of entire lives.

It is probably this responsibility that explains why few of the kwazoki move to establish dominion of their own even when they have the abilities to do so… consider it a special kind of addiction.

Group 2: Kwazoki, Vassal, Noble, Dominant (Primarily drawn to Queen, occasionally Knight or Rook) – An incredibly complex group to define… here we are looking at natural alpha’s who chose to serve, or who have a deep seated desire to serve.

The reasons why someone with a strong alpha streak may chose to serve are as varied as the individuals involved… and yet, that service detracts nothing from the alpha qualities in that person… they simply place that ability to command at the service of their lord.

One explanation often heard is that they can enjoy the vast majority of the perks that come from being accorded respect and some degree of authority over the gentry and the peasantry, without the responsibilities that rise from dominion. They often shakes their heads wondering why someone would chose to take control over entire other lives, and they rarely wish to be bothered with such a level of effort for what they see as little gain. They may be correct

The historical precedent that I use internally most often for this type of arrangement is that of the samurai. We are speaking of a person who would never show weakness, a person who was prepared to slit their own belly and die in agony before the any could command their fealty through threat or force.

Yet, that same group, when they found a lord they chose to serve would dedicate their lives to that service. Not from weakness, but from strength. A person who could easily establish a domain of their own, the Samurai would often chose rather to serve because they were called to it.

In this then, we must consider that we do not know exactly what calls one member of the kwazoki to serve another, but we do know that it is highly specific and often not understood even by the individuals involved. However, this circumstance is proving to be not uncommon.

In fact it is even more complex than a simple comparison of the (a) or ‘alphaness’ of those involved in the transaction. While there is generally a hierarchy arising from the relative alpha qualities of any group of Kwazoki in any given group that manifests itself almost exclusively in terms of respect and not in service or fealty.

Group 3: Shizoku, Gentry, Submissive (Drawn to Rook, Knight, Bishop)

In 1878, when the terms daimyo and samurai were declared dead during the restructuring of Japanese society, the terms kwazoki and shizoku were used to replace them. However, over time kwazoki came to mean nobility in general, and shizoku to mean the gentry class.

The gentry are essentially freepersons. They chose their lords, if they serve them, for their own reasons and they are fully capable of surviving and prospering in the absence of a lord… though they may crave to serve that service is always a choice.

This is commonly what the BDSM community speaks of when they talk about submissives… especially those who retain the unilateral right to termination of their contract and relationship.

Group 4: Serf, Peasantry, Slave (Drawn to Pawn, Rook)

As rare in reality as opposed to the fantasies many gentry hold the slave should not be thought of as weak by definition.

A slave considers themselves to be the absolute property of their lord and to the extent that humans are capable of they do not judge the actions of that lord. This is in sharp contrast to the gentry who serve with one eye always on the qualifications of who they serve.

The serf does not generally aspire to any power over others. Though they will generally accept and enjoy the status that is accorded them by virtue of seniority or their skillset, they rarely seek to managerial positions in a household.

-Soulhuntre

Note: This essay was updated on 09/29/2001 to correct certain terminology inconsistencies