Pillion Review

Misalignment is not abuse

I watched Pillion in the Castro Theatre, completely surrounded by Leather Gays. I came directly from a session, grinning maniacally at my friends as I removed my underwire bra through the arm hole of my t-shirt. Watching a horny movie surrounded by horny people is a very fun experience. Audible gasps from the gays behind me during the “picnic scene,” thirsty hands gripping leather clad thighs in the tense moments. After the film, we all circled around my friend’s immaculate Harley to discuss what we thought. In the company of other leather people, the film felt cozy and even kind of mundane.

The main critique was that it felt entry-level and fantastical. We were disappointed by the absence of elements we would have found actually meaningful; there was no collaring scene, no actual pain play other than wrestling, I felt personally affronted (as a fetishist) that the hair buzzing scene was omitted. Small scenes like these could have grounded the story in the symbolic visual language of real leather culture. Parts of the film felt rushed and under-researched; the “real leather gays” were relegated to the background and the two main characters were a little exaggerated to feel realistic. That said, in that moment, I could barely conceive how it would be received outside of leather culture.

I was shocked when I read mainstream reviews. I saw many speak of abuse, coercion and grooming, which I did not witness in the film. I felt protective and, in some ways, I felt attacked. The film stuck with me for quite some time. I liked that it did not seek to hand-hold or guide the audience through D/s. It felt realistic that it didn’t have an on-the-nose negotiation or consent scene. I know enough about cis-male leather gays to know that establishing consent and mutuality can be more of an active, and even combative, process. Either you understood the context or your viewership relegated to the surrogacy of the mother’s point of view; why would anyone choose this? It must be abuse. There must be a victim. Someone must be wrong.

But is it wrong? Was anyone wronged? Are you sure you know who was wronged?

My view of Ray and Colin’s relationship is heavily mediated by my own experience as a Dominant. Although I switch for fun and pleasure, I am very strongly Dominant in scene. In a BDSM context, I am also generally what one would refer to as a “stone top”, meaning I do not allow my submissives to pleasure me; my pleasure comes from my dominance, my skill at topping and the eager reception of my submissive. Although, in the film, Ray is not stone (nor is stone really a thing in gay male culture), I would argue that he exhibits similar characteristics to a stone top. He does not allow kissing and he does not show affection. These are completely normal boundaries that some tops have, but most importantly, they are boundaries that tops are allowed to have.

I was struck in the film by Ray’s rigidity in his boundaries and the clarity of his rules. Rules are extremely important in high protocol D/s, specifically consistent rules. One of the most harmful disservices you can commit as a Dominant is lack of consistency, and believe me, maintaining the clarity in your rules can be very, very hard. Ray is unwavering. He makes lists, he enforces routine, he sticks to his guns. This is an incredibly admirable quality in a high protocol top. I admired his dominance keenly as I do not offer high protocol 24/7 D/s; I have a lot more going on in my life than my dynamics, so I feel claustrophobic and trapped when it is expected that I set out an exhaustive set of rules and regulations and rigorously enforce them daily. But just because I don’t personally vibe with 24/7 Ds, I still appreciate the craft. It’s a stupendous amount of effort to oversee another person in this manner. It takes skill, vigilance, time, focus, patience and self-knowledge. The amount of effort that a dynamic like this requires from the Dominant is staggering, I cannot abide that it be characterized as neglect. This is work. Ray’s dominance is aspirational, and far beyond my personal ability or interest.

The fact that Ray plucks a person from a bar and sees the service submissive potential in him is definitely fantastical and the least believable aspect of the film. But it is very real that many people desire extreme dominance and seek it out. People crave what Colin receives from Ray. Many people salivate at the thought of the degradation, humiliation and control, and that’s so great! All power to the vast tapestry of human desire, right? Just because it’s not your thing, doesn’t mean it’s bad or wrong, right?

Colin’s consent was quite obvious to me. He pursues Ray obsessively and unambiguously states that he wishes for Ray to train him and shape him. Colin is very inexperienced and impressionable, but he clearly has a predilection for D/s. Mentorship relationships like these are extremely common in leather culture and although they are clearly imbalanced, many fetishize this type of inequality. This power differential can absolutely be abused, any relationship can degrade into abuse and dynamics that are predicated on power, vulnerability and trust are minefields for manipulation. But active viewership requires resisting the urge to map your own assumptions, experiences and traumas on to the complicated dynamics of others, like the meme:

Colin explicitly desires this kind of relation and refers to himself as having “an aptitude for devotion” while within the relationship, as well as after it has ended. He is a submissive, and proudly so. I truly don’t know how the film could have been more clear about Colin’s desire to be dominated and given orders. As a person deeply enmeshed in the culture of leather, the signaled consent did not feel subtle at all, especially for gay male leather. The only explanation I can cite as to why other reviewers felt this relationship was abusive is that people fundamentally wish to map disempowerment on to submissives and insert abuse into D/s dynamics, sometimes as a result of personal experience or from a general “ick”.

Our societal dialectics of power and disempowerment encourage us to see exploitation instead of nuanced dynamics; if one person has authority and decision making power, then they are de-facto oppressing the other. Although this is true in the non-consensual relationships of capitalism and imperialism, it falls apart in consensual D/s. BDSM often borrows the worst parts of societal relations, examines them and then reframes them into play-acting and fantasy fulfillment. This process of extraction and refinement of “bad relationships” gives D/s its teeth, makes it compelling and grounded in context. This can also be pretty disturbing to witness from the outside and it’s natural to be concerned about non-normative behaviors. But for many, replaying real-life nonconsensual interactions (either explicit rape play or the general desire to be given clear orders in an unpredictable world) can be a form of sublimating anxiety and reclaiming agency. Modern life is full of high stress and high stakes decisions and the submissive craves the blissful state of deference. Clear rules and transparent punishment feels relaxing and navigable compared to the chaos and injustice that abound. Submission can be a consensual, empowered state. It also requires a foil. The submissive needs a Dominant to maintain this fantasy, so why do we impulsively vilify the Dominant for fulfilling this desire? The assumption that all submissives are coerced or manipulated shows a lack of analysis and insight into D/s culture and is deeply patronizing of submissives and dominants alike. Abuse can absolutely happen in the context of BDSM without question, but did it happen in this film?

Ray is a Dominant, and most Dominants have rules. Ray’s rules are harsh, but they are also clear and consistent. One can read into Ray’s boundaries as the product of an emotionally closed off individual harboring a deep trauma, or one can not. People do not need to have suffered damage in order to experience dominant desire. People can also enjoy rigid boundaries in their relationships without facing scrutiny for this preference. Ray has a framework that he desires in a relationship, it doesn’t need to go deeper than that nor does the film imply anything more. The boundaries of any person in a relationship are valid. You do not need to change your boundaries for another person. It is ok to tell someone that if they cannot abide by your boundaries, then the relationship will be terminated. It is not neglectful or abusive to maintain the same boundaries you had at the beginning of a relationship as a relationship evolves. I want to be very clear that relationships based on outlined rules are valid, even if it is one person making those rules for the other to follow. D/s is exactly this. If both parties agree, then that is that. It's ok to not be compatible, but not being compatible is not abuse. If one party asks for a different arrangement and the other party declines, that is not abuse, that is misalignment. Ray is clear; sleep at the foot of the bed, no kissing, perform the tasks outlined on the lists. In the context of a D/s relationship, these are perfectly valid rules.

I think that the characterization of Ray’s rigid rules as abusive or coercive is very dangerous. The threat of terminating a relationship over misalignment is not a coercive threat. Being denied access to a Dominant because you cannot follow their rules is not manipulation. Ray’s rules are clear and he communicates them unceremoniously, if Colin rejects them he can leave the relationship. That is not abuse, that is a clear boundary that Ray requires, perhaps for his own emotional safety, or perhaps simply for his pleasure. I find that the common line “I can fix him/her/them” to be quite disturbing; love the person you are with as they are, not as you wish them to be. Do not enter into a relationship with the goal of bending the boundaries of the other person. This goes for D/s relationships tenfold.

After the death of his mother, Colin is in deep emotional upheaval and needs more affection from Ray. This is totally understandable and to his credit, Ray tries to concede some ground to Colin, even though it is clearly outside of Ray’s comfort zone. Ray’s love for Colin is indisputable to me; the amount of effort he puts into structuring their relationship is a labor of love and Ray seems to be quite proud to show off the devotion that he has cultivated in Colin. I found the end of the film very tragic. Ray clearly cares for Colin, but he is pushing his own boundaries to try and accommodate his grieving lover. Colin cannot help himself but push further once the door is opened. I felt my heart sink through this sequence. I have found, through a huge amount of trial and error, that once a boundary becomes porous, the entire foundation of a D/s relationship collapses. It is tragic because this porosity is always extended by the Dom to the sub as an expression of care or intimacy, yet true care lies in consistency and clear structure. In a thoughtless moment, you allow your submissive a treat or reward that steps outside the structure and then suddenly everything falls apart, leaving you both adrift. The submissive is almost always delighted in the overstep and feels euphoric in their perceived victory. But it is a true pyrrhic victory. Ray could have maintained the severity of the dynamic after the death of Colin’s mother and that structure may have seemed inhumane, but would have probably created a rigid and familiar comfort for Colin. But Ray capitulated, because of course he did. The giddy “last day” sequence did not feel sweet to me. It felt like daddy making you smoke the whole pack.

The bed scene, when Colin forcefully gets into bed with Ray, was really difficult for me to watch. Although I felt a huge amount of empathy for the pain that Colin was experiencing, I deeply felt for Ray. That scene was a violation of Ray’s rules and therefore consent. Ray was clear that Colin slept on the floor. He allowed Colin into the bed once out of pity after the funeral, but then Ray wished to return to his comfort zone. Colin did not respect this. Dominants can be violated by their submissives. The boundaries that a Dominant puts in place are important and if they are crossed, that constitutes a consent violation. Often the boundaries of Dominants are framed by the submissive as a coy or playful denial, but they can be actual boundaries that the Dominant has in place for their physical or emotional safety. Violating a Dominant’s stated rules is not cute or bratty, it can be truly fucked up. If a submissive forced their way into my bed after we’d agreed that their sleeping place was on the floor, I would freak the fuck out, even if they were emotionally bereft. This scene was the only actual stated consent violation with repeated “NO”s in the film and I think that is important to note.

I feel for Colin. He wants a different relationship than Ray is willing to offer. This is sad, but it is not tragic. You are not entitled to shape the Dominant of your dreams, if your dreams and needs are outside of that Dominant’s offerings and boundaries. The final message of the film is pleasant enough. Colin has learned what he wants; a devotionally submissive relationship with a few key caveats. I do not think that Colin naming his needs is an indictment of Ray. Ray is still entitled to his strict framework, just because it didn’t work for Colin doesn’t mean it’s wrong or bad. Find the one who willingly provides what you want, do not force the one you want to provide what you want. Ray is deliriously desirable and that can absolutely cloud a submissives judgement. But that is not an excuse to try and mould your dream Dominant to perform activities outside their boundaries. The rules of a Dominant are important and personal, if their rules don’t fit your desires, reevaluate or move on with better clarity.