Sunday, March 8, 2009

The ultimate servant

The name "Deity" (which is short for DominantDeity) has been a handle i've used when indulging in my sexual kink for many, many years. When i went to play parties, that was the name i registered under. When i entered chatrooms, it was always as 'Deity'. I first employed it in my early twenties, having arrived at it through very little effort. I still remember the short yet very satisfying process that led me to this alter ego. I was trying to come up with something that resonated with my approach to SM and my fetishes, and in the same breath, i wanted to mock the honorifics i'd seen that employed "Master" "Sir" or "Lord". Those felt so artificial to me, nothing i could possibly wield without feeling a sense of awkward detachment from them or, worse, snicker at myself.

I most identified with the creation aspect of the term 'deity', and less so the all-knowing and all-powerful. While the idea of wielding power over a pretty little thing has always enticed me, the spike that strikes directly to my erotic core is the commutation of my desire into a girl which changes her and becomes a native appetite of her own. I saw the formation of impulses and feedback through training, correction and conditioning as a very deific task. I controlled the ingredients and rewards/punishments, wherein my subject responded to this world, following my laws and commandments. This method has momentum to it, a vector that indicates a pathway to an end, which is both aiding and problematic. As my girl has always said, nothing is ever enough for me, but this model suggests that there is a stopping point. The problem is, once reached, what then? (so far, in all of my efforts, i have not reached that point).

Well, an omniscient being would know 'what next', which i never have fancied myself as being. I wonder if other dominant Tops fantasize about attaining that level of cognition, but i know for certain, it is not of interest to me.

Some of you may know this man, others of you will be unfamiliar with him. In this form, he's known as 'Dr. Manhattan' from the graphic novel "Watchmen". Formerly, Jonathan Osterman, the nuclear physicist who was transformed into a superpowered being by an accident involving his own 'instrinsic field' experiments. Dr Manhattan is capable of escaping time, altering all matter, transporting himself and others and completely obliterating any lifeform or object - for all intents and purposes, his freakish transformation has turned him into a deity.

I saw the movie adaptation of the novel this weekend, and two things struck me as i was watching this incredibly violent but engrossing film. The normal, ordinary human John acquired super-human qualities that eventually led him to disconnect from his human mind and aligned him more with his supernatural qualities. He gained the ability to discern time as a human construct and that passion and pleasure were no different than pain and turmoil; once the passage of time has been removed from the discussion, all of them represent a single, identical point. His sudden omniscience removed him of the ability to experience the simple thrill of a delicious meal or a passionate night of sex.

The other thing that struck me came from one particular scene that involved Dr. Manhattan and his love interest, Laurie Juspecyk. In the film, we see a close-up on Laurie's beautiful face, her eyes are closed, her cheeks lifted with arching arousal, and sliding in and out of her open mouth is a bright blue, electrified thumb belonging to the illuminated Dr. Manhattan. The camera zooms out a bit, showing multiple, glowing limbs caressing Laurie's cheek, tugging her hair, fondling her tits, pinning her arm to the mattress. It becomes clear to the viewer that this superfreak has multiplied himself in order to do quite the erogenous number on his lover. In the throngs of ecstasy, Laurie pulls herself to the fore and notices this aberration and freaks out about it. She leaps from the bed, only to see in addition to duplicating himself so that he could exponentially pleasure her, that he's also placed a version of himself in his lab, in order to keep up with his top secret work. Laurie confronts the incandescent man about his apparent insensitivity toward their intimacy. Cold, and emotionless, Dr. Manhattan responds, "I was doing what i thought would give you pleasure."

I reflected on this episode for a long time after the film ended. I'd read the book that has now become the wildly anticipated film, but the position made about supreme beings in the movie didn't come across quite as boldly. After viewing this scene, it became very clear that Dr. Manhattan, despite what his possession of ultimate power would suggest, was truthfully a very gifted servant. This drew up past theological lessons of mine from college that demonstrated that God was in fact the ultimate servant - because he could control everything, all that was left was to serve those of us who resided in His fishbowl. If He abandoned us, we perished. If He attended to our every need, we flourished.

I'm left with questions about power between a dominant Top and a submissive bottom. If the bottom's goal is to serve every whim and desire of their Top, who then has the supreme power? Perhaps, i'm not as in control as i presume. And, perhaps, more importantly, my chosen moniker is in fact mistaken.


cutesy pah said...

As a submissive/slave, I've always been one to tease my Master/Owner or Dominant (choose your term). Once upon a time, many years ago, I was speaking with a Domme and her partner, who was sitting cross-legged on the floor for hours, waiting while she worked a party. She pointed at him, and said, "Who do you think is really in charge here? if he tells me that he is cold, or tired, or uncomfortable, I listen, and alter the situation. For if I ignore him, he will leave to find another more caring and considerate. and, without him, I am only a woman who wishes for a submissive. so, tell me, who is really in charge here?"

for the Dominant who finds the submissive who truly understands this "power exchange," their world knows no limits, their love and bond no restrictions.

thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Clemmi said...

By choosing to become an owned person, i found freedom. Freedom in slavery.

Isn't (my) Master serving me ?

baby girl said...

funny. i just got home from cinema where i saw that film. that scene played in my mind most of the ride home.

i think we serve each other. maybe that's oversimplified, but without one there can't be the other. it's a fluid energy exchange that can't thrive without the service of all parties involved.

ps. after reading your comment about your reaction to the superman emblem, i almost changed it back. my need to please is difficult to resist. but i started a second on-line journal and the emblem needs to stay tied to the first one alone. i do hate to disappoint. :(

Anonymous said...

Dear Deity,
THIS exemplifies why we keep coming back for more.

...And perhaps because a few of us are also Sneaky Little Buggers at heart. :-)

Deity said...

quite spot on. i've often told my girl "this", "us", doesn't exist without her consenting.

i think of myself as providing a service, most certainly. i gather, however, it is often seen as bottoms choose the role they play because it's the "easier" one. they get done, while the Top does. but of course, i disagree that submitting is the easy role categorically.

baby girl,
i think it's the culturally held notion of "serving". it is offered as powerless, subservience (and yes, i chose to use words that commonly have a negative connotation).

p.s. i miss the S

i'm curious if you could provide an example of something on my site that might not keep you coming back.

baby girl said...

re: p.s.

ugh! you torture me. ;-)

Anonymous said...

Well...There was one entry about a particular act that doesn't appeal to me at all. One out of a few years worth of posts?
Touche, Mr. Diety Sir.

Deity said...

what was that act?