“Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

I’ve had this entry rolling around in my head for weeks- if not months. It’s been stuck, and I kept wavering back and forth on thinking that it’s such a simple concept that the most I would be able to come up with was the title quote and a big ol “D’uh” in the body of the post, sign my name and be done with it.

Or, it’s too complicated to put into words. Because all I’ve done is mentally stutter over it.

So how’s about I stutter over it here and at the end you can tell me if I should have just went with the “D’uh”, ok?

If the title quote (Courtesy of Lord Acton) doesn’t give it away, what I’ve been contemplating is the tendency of some dominants to become heady with power. I’m not at all going to say that it afflicts all doms because I certainly don’t know all doms.

What I can say is that within the circle of submissives and slaves that I know, that I have talked with either in person or through email, those who have left behind some of the more commonly used safeguards such as safewords, contracts, limits, SSC, etc., there has been a common thread. Common enough that I’ve noticed it, talked about, other people have noticed it and talked about it- the fact seems to be that, at some point, these doms become drunk on power.

One rather strange but very enjoyable girl ( ) used the analogy of playing a game without a referee.

Let’s say there is a lengthy, wicked game of football going on. This isn’t a play-to-win game of football, it’s just a play-for-sport game of football.

Two teams. We’ll call them Team M and Team S.

There is no referee. Nobody to throw flags (red ones, tee hee) or blow whistles. The rules of the game still exist. There is just no unbiased enforcer of the game rules.

Both teams can commit penalties and fouls. But only Team M can penalize Team S. Team S cannot assign penalties back.

So you take one competetitive, commanding, dominant team who holds all the power to play the game in whatever manner they see fit and face them off against a weaker, compliant, amenable team that has zero power to penalize the other team on their fouls.

And then you start the clock and sit back to watch.

What do you THINK is going to happen?

Probably the game starts out decently enough. It’s likely that Team M maintains their sense of fair play, their inherent rightness, their honor and integrity and plays a decent game.

For awhile.

Maybe the first foul Team M commits is truly accidental. Maybe he didn’t mean to stampede over Team S’s player on his way to the goal, so caught up in the energy of the game. Maybe he knew he should have been called for unnecessary roughness, maybe he expected it, waited for it and when it didn’t come, when Team S simply got up, brushed off the uniform, smiled and got back in the game- maybe Team M had a moment of guilt.

Or maybe Team M went- huh. well that was neat. I wonder…

Maybe the next foul was less accidental and a lot more experimental. Testing the compliance of Team S, fouls being committed perhaps with one eye out for the absent referee, not quite convinced this game is playing out, seemingly, this easily.

“Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.” ~Lord Acton

I would imagine that power becomes consuming. The fouls become more frequent, less hesitant, more purposeful. With each incident of Team S quietly taking it, I can see it all playing out in a variety of ways.

Maybe Team M stops noticing that they are fouling in the first place. Maybe they never get reminded of it either. Maybe they keep playing, and keep committing penalties, until Team S is so far down that Team S simply… stops playing. Going through the motions, but the spirit is gone.

Or maybe Team M’s arrogance just grows and grows. As arrogance grows, the game starts to leave the field.

With no referee to keep the game played between the white lines, the game becomes larger. With such constant meek compliance from Team S, the players on Team M forget what their power was limited to.

Maybe they forget how to play fair outside of the game. Maybe they start recruiting players and assigning them a spot on Team S. Players who never wanted to play the game in the first place but had the misfortune of somehow being affiliated with Team S.

Team M’s britches get too fucking big. Team M can’t separate consensual players from non-consensual players. Maybe Team M has a big ol’ reality check coming when the non-consensual players on Team S rise up and shove a penalty flag up Team M’s ass.

Or.. maybe Team M does keep it on the field. Maybe Team M is content with hammering on Team S.

And maybe , if Team M hasn’t completely lost their heads, they start to notice how beaten down Team S is getting. Maybe they see the downtrodden faces, the heavy shoulders, the absent smiles. Maybe it starts to niggle at them, their inherent sense of fair play triggered back into rememberance. Maybe they look at the scoreboard with its 1,734 to 0 and ask themselves if this is really winning.

So maybe guilt floods in. Maybe they take their ball and go home. Maybe they quit.

But maybe that reaction is just as cowardly.

“Great men are almost always bad men.” ~Lord Acton

I don’t believe that. I don’t believe that they are bad men. I don’t believe they started out as bad men, and I don’t believe they have to finish as bad men.

Perhaps they got a little rotten in the middle of the game. A little drunk with power, a little blind to the rules.

Having to be your own referee in a game where you make the rules is not easy. A little swing one way or the other seems like a normal and natural expectation as they find their place. What would be, for me, the deciding factor in the good-man/bad-man scale, would be where they ended up after experimenting with the swing.

Can they hold the power with all its glory and privilege and still maintain a level of fair play? Or.. can they not. If they cannot, it’s doubtful they were deserving of the power in the first place.

“The strong man with the dagger is followed by the weak man with the sponge.” ~Lord Acton

One would think that they’d figure out how to play the game so that Team M uses Team S’s strong points to their advantage– rather than taking advantage of them.

Power is a heady thing, though. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But does it have to?

Amazing Story

In 1986, Peter Davies was on holiday in Kenya after graduating from University .

On a hike through the bush, he came across a young bull elephant standing with one leg raised in the air.

The elephant seemed distressed, so Peter approached it very carefully.

He got down on one knee, inspected the elephants foot, and found a large piece of wood deeply embedded in it.

As carefully and as gently as he could, Peter worked the wood out with his knife, after which the elephant gingerly put down its foot.

The elephant turned to face the man, and with a rather curious look on its face, stared at him for several tense moments.

Peter stood frozen, thinking of nothing else but being trampled.

Eventually the elephant trumpeted loudly, turned, and walked away.

Peter never forgot that elephant or the events of that day.

Twenty years later, Peter was walking through the Chicago Zoo with his teenage son.

As they approached the elephant enclosure, one of the creatures turned and walked over to near where Peter and his son Cameron were standing.

The large bull elephant stared at Peter, lifted its front foot off the ground, then put it down.

The elephant did that several times then trumpeted loudly, all the while staring at the man.

Remembering the encounter in 1986, Peter could not help wondering if this was the same elephant.

Peter summoned up his courage, climbed over the railing, and made his way into the enclosure.

He walked right up to the elephant and stared back in wonder.

The elephant trumpeted again, wrapped its trunk around one of Peter legs and slammed him against the railing, killing him instantly.

Probably wasn’t the same elephant.

This is for everyone who sends me those heart-warming bullshit stories.

~author unknown