‘Submission is a gift’ is quite a long-standing trope which makes me prickle every time it comes up, so I've been writing in an attempt to pin down exactly why I don't like it.
I do get what it's trying to express – namely, that submission is valuable and freely given – and as far as that goes, I agree. In fact, the idea of ‘submission as gift’ existed purely as a metaphor, just a poetic way of expressing a trite romantic notion, I’d happily consign it to my personal compost heap of sundry cliches and move on.
The problem is, it’s been kicking around so long that it's become ingrained as an analogy – a more pragmatic comparison drawn to facilitate understanding. And as an analogy, I think it does quite a poor job.
Why submission as a gift is a poor analogy
There are quite a lot of holes I can pick in this, but no analogy is perfect, so I’ll stick to three points I think actually throw up misconceptions.
1. A gift is given without compensation or expectations
A gift by definition is something which is given without any expectation of something in exchange. While gift giving often eventually ends up being reciprocal, the general idea is that a ‘true’ gift is broadly altruistic.
By contrast, submission must be given with some expectations in order to be healthy. So, the analogy creates something of a misleading picture, especially as only submission is framed as a gift and dominance is not.
2. Giving a gift is one sided, whereas you can’t ‘give’ submission without ‘receiving’ dominance
As it’s supposed to be altruistic, a gift is basically one-sided – when giving something, you don’t generally receive something in exchange. Dominance and submission however require each other to really exist – power exchange is inherent in the connection and not any act.
So, you can’t ‘give’ submission without simultaneously ‘receiving’ dominance in exchange. I think submission is a ‘gift’ like going on a date with someone is - that is conditional on the presence or involvement.
3. Framing it as a ‘gift’ doesn’t express that submission is continual and reactionary
Framing submission as a gift misrepresents it as something static, which can be figuratively speaking packaged and gifted. Whereas submission, much like dominance, is a fluid set of instincts, feelings, and behaviours that evolve with time and trust.
That is to say, submission and dominance are reactionary – they’re responses to each other, with a strong emotional component. A dom makes a sub *feel* submissive and vice versa. Which I think is really a key to understanding power exchange – that a dynamic has to be based on reciprocal effort and engagement, because it’s fundamentally about two people bring out in each other.
##So, it’s a poor analogy. Why do I think it matters?
Popular analogies often form the building blocks for popular understanding. And analogies are a great way of making ideas easier to understand - they're basically a form of thought auto-fill, auto-populating a bunch of things we’d otherwise need to consciously think about.
Which is not to say that I think analogies should be perfect, just that a useful analogy should be a shortcut to understanding, not throw up additional obstacles.
And in my opinion, submission as a gift is not just an imperfect analogy – it’s so inaccurate that it creates common misconceptions about how D/s works.
I’ve spoken to plenty of people over the years who have run into this analogy, incorporated it into their understanding, and struggled with it: subs who based their expectations on the idea that ‘true submission’ receives nothing in return; doms who received ‘the gift of submission’ and bent over backwards to ‘honour’ it, burning out because they had all of the responsibility with none of their needs met; and variants on the annoying trope of ‘why won’t anyone dominate me, I am GivInG tHe giFt oF sUbmISsiOn’, which frequently pop up on Reddit.
That’s not to say the analogy was solely to blame – obviously, everyone is responsible for their own actions and understanding. But equally, the analogy played some part in perpetuating the misconceptions involved.
So, what about a better analogy?
If I were to take a stab at an analogy for power exchange, I’d probably pick dancing. Say, a ballroom waltz.
I’m sure it has plenty of imperfections as an analogy, but it conveys the fact that power exchange dynamics are the product of the effort, skill and care of two people, moving in tandem, responding to each other. It also covers the idea that there’s a leader and a follower, but to follow doesn’t mean to be passive. Following takes the same level of skill and competence as leading, it’s just a different set of steps, the inverse to those of the leader.
But I am by no means saying there’s a ‘correct’ analogy, just that there are better analogies out there than ‘submission as a gift’.
Conclusion
'Submission is a gift' is a pleasant enough sentiment and I have no bone to pick with anyone in particular who wants to use 'submission as a gift' as a metaphor if it resonates with them. I appreciate the language we use to describe our dynamics can be deeply personal and subjective.
But I think it's worth considering as part of a bigger picture and having a discussion about, because I for one have certainly met people for whom it's made for a conceptual stumbling block. So, I think it's a topic worth having a think about - maybe there's a better way to convey the value / freedom of submission which would resonate equally well. And I mean, even if there isn't, having this kind of discussions draws attention to the misconceptions anyways.
2023 © SilkenClaws.com. All Rights Reserved.
