The right to inequality

Go to list of other short topics

I'm thinking of organising a march for the right to inequality.

Too long has society imposed on us a need to look at our partners, at our colleagues and at people we pass on the streets as equals. No more, I say!

When we pursue a master/slave relationship, society and the law expect and require that the slave takes responsibility for their actions. This can be in conflict with the goals of the master/slave relationship itself.

When someone is a slave, they can devote themselves towards serving the desires and whims of their master or mistress to the nth degree. Having to question what they're ordered to do to ensure that they don't cross any legal or moral line means that the slave necessarily takes back from their master some of the authority they have been working so hard to give.

For example, a master gives their slave a set of house keys and sends them to a particular address to bring back some documents lying on the dining room table. Doing this could amount to stealing if the owner of the house or apartment hadn't agreed to someone coming and taking those documents. In our present legal environment the slave could be charged with theft. If that happens then they might have a small amount of leeway in court if they claim ignorance, but the point is that they are exposed under the law. In an ideal world, if the nature of the master/slave relationship were recognised then the master would wear some or all of the responsibility in the eyes of the law. Obeying the orders of one's master would be recognised as justification.

There are precedents for one person having responsibility for the actions of another. In matters of business a member of staff following instructions from their manager to engage in some behaviour which places the business in financial or legal jeopardy is typically not going to be at risk. Instead, the manager is.

In the police or military, a subordinate following the orders of a superior officer is also not going to wear the consequences if things go pear-shaped.

In the military and in business, the responsibility for the consequences of a subordinate following orders falls on the shoulders of the person giving the orders. It's necessary for the operation of businesses and the military that this transfer of responsibility occurs. If it didn't we could get the absurd situation, for example, where a member of a road gang performing road works could be sued for damaging a water pipe when their supervisor or the person who planned the road works should take responsibility instead.

What we have here are hierarchies - in business, the military and elsewhere - and responsibility ripples up these hierarchies to the top and, as they say, the buck stops there.

When we're talking about master/slave relationships or dominant/submissive relationships we're again talking about hierarchies. These are hierarchies involving just two people. However, these are also hierarchies which society really doesn't recognise or understand. The same as with business or the military, the hierarchy is important to the well-functioning of the BDSM relationship. It's fundamental and for many of us folk the fact of this hierarchy is what we're looking for in the first place.

If we're seen by non-BDSMers as simply "kinky people" then the idea that there's a formal delegation or transfer of authority in our relationships is simply missed or not understood. In a business this transfer is actually expected and it's done by formally becoming an employee. In the police or military it is done by joining up and acquiring a rank. Society needs to learn, to be educated about us.

So, back to that march idea. Anyone care to join me? We can make a day of it. But, of course, be nice and don't annoy the police. If you get arrested, you're on your own... which is sort of the point, isn't it?