On the nature of punishment - Part 1

Greetings all,

The other day a fellow wrote to me concerning his girl. He suggested to me that he found her to be headstrong and felt that she required a beating as a way of dealing with her wilfulness. I disagreed. One can not beat a girl into submission.

This brought to mind an essay I wrote a number of years ago which was posted on my web site. Those who had a chance to visit the site will no doubt recognize the article. I have made a few edits to bring it up to date. Since it is a bit long I will post it in two parts.

On the Nature of Punishment

What is punishment?

Webster, in a prime display of circular reasoning, defines punishment as the act of punishing. Further research yields the following definition “to impose a penalty on for a fault, offence, or violation.” The key word here is “penalty”. The common characteristic to all penalties is that they must impose a suffering upon the party being punished.

What is the nature of the wrong? Why is the person being punished? If the common characteristic is the penalty then what of its cause? Webster’s “fault, offence or violation” is sadly as clear as mud (though at least it covers the ground). In fact, a broad continuum of motivating factors can be used to justify the penalty. They span virtually every field of human interaction and include religion, politics and commerce.

One might therefore conclude that punishment is a universal component of the human condition and consider the discussion closed (which will perhaps be your wish by the time you reach the end of this paper). But I find this answer provides little insight, particularly when considering the dominant/submissive relationship (D/s). What role does punishment play in the interaction between dominant and submissive?

As the relationship develops, it is natural that the dominant will develop a deep sense of responsibility for the submissive. Control without responsibility is at best nothing more than play and at worst potentially criminal cruelty. To truly satisfy his desire to dominate, the dominant must accept responsibility for the submissive’s well-being. At minimum when they are together, and in many cases full time.

If power is the primary domain of the dominant, then the realm of service belongs to the submissive. Beyond the sexual abandon and freedom of bondage; the essence of a submissive is a desire to serve, to perform acts that help. Submissives feel great joy and satisfaction in the proper execution of their duties, sure in the knowledge that they are contributing to the benefit of their dominant.

Why are submissives motivated to serve? There is no easy answer. Some may claim genetics, others socialization. Some may say an abusive upbringing, while others may speak of religion and faith. In my opinion the seminal cause of this need is not material. There is a long and venerated tradition of service in all societies. For example, many men and women who feel the need to serve have traditionally entered religious life. Their motivation is rarely questioned. However, not all submissives are well suited to a life of chastity or poverty, even though obedience would not pose a problem. There are certain pleasures in serving a flesh and blood dominant which may not be generally available from a distant and unknowable deity. Happily, it is the nature of dominants to accept these forms of services.

That being the case, why then should a dominant punish a submissive at all?

Punishment, even the threat of punishment, should never be used to coerce a submissive to serve. A submissive serves out of an inner need. It is a crime to force service in such a manner, and those who perform such acts are criminals. Non-consensual service, while perhaps the stuff or erotic fantasy, is a vile thing in reality.

The need to punish may seem counter-intuitive at first, especially if love is also a component in the relationship. How can a man hit the woman he loves? How can he cause her to suffer? The answer lies within the responsibility that a dominant must always have for his submissive. Ironically, his responsibility for her well-being requires that she be punished.

To understand why this is so, one must first understand the process of forgiveness.

When anyone commits a mistake, an error, a sin, even an unintentional cruelty, there are three stages to resolution. The first is recognition. It is required that the person recognizes the nature of their infraction and the damage it has caused. The second part is restitution. It is required that some atonement is made, some way to right the wrong. The final stage is redemption or forgiveness, from the wronged party and from the person themselves. This is common for all people, not just those in a dominant/submissive relationship. However when a submissive in a D/s relationship makes a mistake, it is the dominant who must forgive.

Submissives require a structure in which to serve. This is reflected in the set of protocols or disciplines that are given to the submissive by the dominant. If her need to serve is to be satisfied then she must clearly understand what is required to please her dominant. While others might feel these rules to be an unwarranted and unwelcome restriction on their freedom, the submissive will thrive in such an environment. If structure is lacking, the submissive will seek another who can provide it.

One of the most basic rules that a submissive learns, is that failure has its consequence. If the dominant does not exact punishment for a failure, then in effect he is indicating that the discipline was not really important in the first place. Further, it indicates the dominant did not feel strongly enough about the failure to do anything about it. This undermines the very nature of the relationship and leaves the submissive in state of doubt. For if one discipline is not important, perhaps others are not as well, or worse yet, she suspects that her dominant no longer cares enough to be bothered enforcing his rules. In many cases, such failure often marks the beginning of the failure of the relationship as a whole.

To fail to punish, is to fail the submissive. Spare the rod, spoil the sub.
-----------------

More tomorrow.

Be seeing you,