The Gift Theory

- submission as a "gift" -

Simon's Note to Readers: My position on this concept will probably be more than a little unpopular with some folks. After all, how dare any respectable dominant in today's touchy feely new age politically correct world not agree that submission is a gift?! But then again, I've never been one to seek popularity over clarity.

Now when I talk about this I'm going to use the word "you" a lot and probably "he" and "she" and "him" and "her" a few times. Obviously I'm not saying "you" and meaning anyone in particular, it's simply the generic "you" in this case. And any references to "he" and "she" would apply as easily if you reversed the genders in most cases - it's just easier for me to write from my own particular perspective. (For simplicity I'm also going to use the words "dominant" and "submissive" as if they aren't really just adjectives, but that's a subject for another article.)

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
-- Lewis Carroll, _Through the Looking Glass_, 1872

"Submission as a Gift"

OK - my basic premise is that I do not think of nor refer to submission as a "gift" that can be given to another. Now, to be sure everyone understands what I do and don't mean here, I'm going to add a couple of clarifiers:

Do I believe that "submission" itself is of great value?
  -- Yes, there's really no argument there for me.

Do I believe that you bring your "submission" to the exchange?
  -- Yes, I believe that you certainly have to do that.

Do I believe you can call it a "gift" or "giving" though?
  -- No, I absolutely do not think so.

Why? Because to me - and yes YMMV (your mileage may vary) a lot -- there's something about a gift that can be taken back at any time that just doesn't ring true. If it's a gift that you give but that he doesn't have the right to keep - regardless of whether or not you want it back from him - what kind of gift is that?

If it's a gift that you can take back -- then do you become an Indian Giver of some kind if you do decide to take it back? And once it's been given and then taken back -- do you really just clean it up, put it in a new box with a fresh ribbon on it and give it again to someone else?

I agree that it may seem like a wonderfully romantic concept to call it a gift when you're actively giving it to someone. Or when you think about how you will give it to someone. But to me it doesn't sound quite as good when I think about it as "the gift that keeps on being given" to as many as you wish to give it to. Sort of like you're a neverending bottomless well of giving. Too selfless and altruistic sounding to me. Particularly when what we're really talking about is something that's one of your own personal deepest driving desires and needs.

Also, if you're not involved in a full-time relationship (or are involved in an open relationship), and instead choose to submit to various dominants at different times, then are we talking about a special kind of gift that's temporarily given -- but only for use during a particular time and only in pre-negotiated ways?

In fact, even in a 24/7 relationship, if you're negotiating at all about how you will or won't submit, and in what ways to which kinds of things -- then what kind of gift is given with so many strings attached? Add in the concept of safewords now and we wind up with a gift that the person you gave it to can use freely only in the ways you tell them they are permitted to and must cease using immediately if you ever say so. Still sound like a gift to you? Well not to me - so perhaps our definitions vary?

Looking at simple dictionary definitions, I see that one of the things to consider is how we want to define the word gift - because I do see there are ways that submission can be a gift, but I do not see that it can be given. Here are the two basic definitions from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Gift - noun [Middle English, from Old Norse, first appeared 12th Century]
  1 : a notable capacity, talent, or endowment.
  2 : (a) something voluntarily transferred by one person
              to another without compensation;
       (b) something freely given by one person to another
              for his benefit or pleasure.

Alright, here's why I say submission can be a gift but can not be given. There's no doubt that many submissives I've known have notable capacities, talents and endowments that are recognizable as valuable submissive traits or characteristics. So part one of the definition above really does make sense to me. I firmly believe that there are certain "gifts" that are necessary for someone to be a submissive. And I believe that someone who has those necessary traits is, in fact, a very "gifted" individual. So, yes, that part of the definition I absolutely agree with.

The place where the concept of gift ceases to apply, for me, is when we try to use the second part of the definition. To me, once a gift has been "voluntarily and freely transferred to me for my benefit and pleasure" I do not expect that the giver would expect to retain any right or power to retake the gift. No, thinking of it that way makes me think more of renting or leasing, or perhaps some other form of borrowing -- but absolutely not as the recipient of a gift would feel.

In fact, to go a bit deeper, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) speaks of a gift as: "something, the possession of which is transferred to another without the expectation or receipt of an equivalent."

Now, would any submissive really say that they'd enter into a power exchange relationship where there was no exchange at all? If you didn't receive whatever it is that you consider valuable in return, would you really enter into the relationship? Or would you really stay in it if there was absolutely nothing of any value at all in it for you?

Now the OED said no "expectation" and no "receipt." And it said of an "equivalent" value. So would you really want to think that the one to whom you're giving your valuable gift must, in fact, be sure to give back absolutely nothing of any value in order to let you call what you're doing "giving him a gift" -- does that sound like a good and sensible idea to you?

I have a couple of other problems with the gift theory too. For one thing there's the old saying that "you shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth." The meaning was that you shouldn't question the value of a gift. But I can tell you, unequivocally, that I absolutely do question, and finally judge, the quality and the value of someone's submission. Just as I'd question and judge the quality and value of someone's dominance. Even if you want to say that what someone gives is not really just their submission but instead it is "themselves" that they give, I can tell you that I question and judge everything about a 'person' too. We all make judgements - all day, every day - and we only seek to mislead ourselves if we attempt to claim otherwise.

Think about it. Don't we talk of all the safety protocols that people absolutely should follow when meeting someone for the first time (or two)? Don't we advise people to get and check references? And doesn't this advice have to apply in both directions? Should a dominant simply trust that everything a submissive tells him is true? Because if those protocols do apply, then what kind of gift is it that we have to question and investigate closely before deciding to accept? Still sound just like a gift to you?

The other problem I have with the gift theory is also related to the "don't question first" concept - but is more the "don't talk about it" kind of trouble. Do you remember reading "The Gift of the Magi" - the O. Henry story? That's the one where a very poor couple wish to give each other Christmas presents (gifts) but have no money to do so. So he sells his treasured watch and buys her a set of combs for her beautiful hair while she cuts off her beautiful hair and sells it to buy him a fob for his treasured watch. While this is a wonderfully romantic story, it also shows how foolish people can be, and why communication is so important and can help prevent problems before they occur. Treating something as a gift which must not be questioned, in part because there's no value received in exchange, can lead to a lot more problems than just the loss of a watch and some hair -- though those things were metaphors for all things of very great personal value.

So, the bottom line is that I prefer to think of things a little differently than this. (big surprise?)

To me this is not about a "Gift of Submission" any more than it is about a "Gift of Dominance." My preference is to have someone simply come to me because she has desires, wants and needs that she wishes to satisfy. Not for some altruistic reason. Not because she's packaged her submission as some kind of gift-wrapped bundle for me. But because she desires, wants and needs to be owned and to be owned by me, to serve and to serve me, and because she wishes to live her life knowing that she's doing exactly what she desires, wants and needs to do.

I don't expect someone to give me her submission. I don't want or need it -- she does. You see, she is a submissive, and her submission is something that she "owns" fully. And I mean "owns" in the sense that she's fully responsible for her submission. Depending on the road we choose to travel together perhaps it's the only thing that she'll fully own once she's become mine to do with as I will.

When I begin a more serious relationship, after whatever initial period to be sure we both want this, I require someone to consent to surrender to me. By doing this she consents to surrender to my will, to my control, to my decisions. That's what she does -- she does not give me a gift of anything -- she simply surrenders her consent, once and to me (not to any particular pre-negotiated acts or actions).

Here again YMMV, but to me consent is something you do to a person, not to an act or an activity. So by doing this she chooses to make one last decision - to give me her consent to do with her as I will. This is because it's what she desires, wants and needs to do in order to be herself. In this way, she's able to be the submissive that she is, she's able to surrender her consent as she desired to, and she's able to begin to live her life as who she needs to be.

This certainly isn't to say that this is the "One True Way" (OTW), or that if you do things differently you're doing them wrong. I'm not sure there's any generic OTW that would work for everyone -- but I do know that there's a OTW for me, and that I do things my way. This also isn't to say that doing things this way means there's never any reluctance or resistance to deal with. It simply means that one of the core beliefs is that consenting to me was the choice she made -- and so the rest of the choices are mine. It means that no matter what else, there's that strong foundation to build on. Without foundation there can be no structure, and without structure you can play but you can't do much more.

So, to close for now, the reasons I don't agree with the "Gift Theory" are many and varied. Some are because of the way the word has been defined by those who went before us. Some are due to the dangers and problems I see involved in thinking of it that way. And some are simply my own personal preference. But everyone has the same right to prefer whatever they like. So if you like thinking of submission as a gift, if it makes you feel good to think of it that way, then of course you have the right to continue to think and feel that way. My intention and my interest hasn't been in attempting to change your mind -- but simply to present a viewpoint that's perhaps different from the one that you hear most often.

Any and all comments are welcome.

Simon S. Ays

Copyright 1999 by Simon S. Ays. This material may not be
copied in any manner. For permission to reproduce this
essay, please contact