Yes Master ... BDSM Toplist    [other banners]

	SD! : Web boards : Practical IE : "Asking opinion on nature of M/s in real life" Asking opinion on nature of M/s in real life (8) Mon 29 Sep 08, 5:06 PM Red_Spark UK, 22 mths  When Raven mentions a “general” it reminds me of that old military-sounding maxim, “Never give an order you know will not be obeyed”. And that made me ask a question so I wanted to bounce some thoughts off you here. I would think that for being a Dominant that maxim is actually pretty good. I take it as meaning, not necessarily to hold back on your “order”, but actually to focus firstly on getting your forces (or second-in-command) into such a position that there is a 100% certainty s/he/they will obey. If you have a submissive (I'm deliberately talking of D/s, not M/s, here right now), there is no point telling them to do something if they are not going to obey, because that undermines the dynamic, your confidence, their perception of you as a Dominant, and if the failure to obey is due to circumstances outside their control rather than a wilful disobedience, that could undermine their self-confidence as well (or just make you look like an idiot!). So for a Dominant, the idea as I have always perceived it is to have a strategy and pursue it to get in place a situation where the command you want to make will be obeyed. For some things this can happen immediately; your submissive finds them easy. Other things could take years or even decades to achieve. It's necessary to “do the ground work” so to speak. In addition, that motto is about knowing your forces – about being able to judge the situation and personality/ies involved to the right extent, and of course this is something that a Dominant should have in relation to their submissive – to know when they are pushing hard and when it is “too hard”. So it is well and good; I think those are useful things to keep in mind at least for me personally as a Dominant. However, in an M/s relationship, is it a matter of the M-type having a better knowledge of their slave and having progressed further in her/his training of them so that he can be totally confident of their obedience because he has worked hard to get them to that position? Or in your opinion should that little maxim not apply in the slightest to an M-type, quite the reverse, because the slave always *will* obey and there is never a situation in which the M-type has to know or suspect their slave will disobey them? Which led me on to further musings/ramblings… I am inclined to think that a slave, by definition, *cannot* disobey a direct order/request from their M. So if an s-type disobeys an order, they are not a slave (no matter what they call themselves or what their M labels them) but rather a submissive. (This is excluding a situation where they may “disobey” but within the parameters of their rules.) But slaves are not always perfect! There will undoubtedly in most cases be some times when a slave might disobey, or speak disrespectfully to his/her M, or refuse to carry something out – since we are all human, and have times we are not feeling so good, or get in a bad mood, or get distracted… not an excuse, but in reality it happens (and us M-types have times when we make a misjudgement too; this also could be the cause of a dispute). I'm not talking of something like forgetting a rule, which is usually accidental and more a question of habit and effort, but an act of wilful disobedience. So, in a roundabout way, my point is that people are not perfect. But if an s-type consciously makes a disobedient act like that, would it be said that actually they are not a slave, that it is impossible for them to be a slave because if they were, they *couldn't* have done that thing? Is it necessary or desirable that they stop perceiving of themselves as “a slave” and their M no longer perceives of themselves as “Master”, “Mistress” or “Owner”? Or would you say that the identities in question, the “labels”, are perfectly valid and such a situation is simply a glitch in the grand scheme of things, and it would be better for them to continue to think of themselves as M/s and just keep progressing to more “success” (by their definition)? Does it really take such a state of sainthood to make an M/s relationship? I'm not really driving at anything in particular, just skooshing around for people's opinions. 29 Sep 08, 5:58 PM anjuli UK, 16 mths  Hmmm... I think the issue here is if you see submissive and slave as being points along a progressional path or as degrees of submissiveness. Our wiki definition speaks of a slave as a submissive (by nature) who is in the position of being owned and has ceded all control to a Master. This runs contrary to the 'slave as uber-sub' idea altogether. It's simply a state of being owned and having no control. And this ties in with the argument that it's a choice you have to make at some point for it to happen. So, my answer is that no, disobedience or being less than perfect cannot make you 'not a slave'. Dear gods, I'd have been out on my ear, over and over, not having actually lived with J as a sub ever! I was new to this and boy have I screwed up at times. But as his slave, I'm not allowed to fail and he is committed to seeing I don't. And I don't think we're that different to others. If he'd walked away or thrown me out, the first time I blew it, I'd have been devastated but I'd have picked myself up from the kerbside and decided he was no Master! <laughs> This would you understand have probably happened sometime in the first three days after he moved me in and therefore IE was not a factor here. And I'd have found myself a new Master... who was for real. Actually I joke but it's a serious point. There's little challenge to mastering and owning another if you just throw out any and all on the slightest failure or disobedience. Master of what? Nothing and nobody I should imagine. How do you win that sort of commitment and devotion from another if you do not create a place, a safe place, for it to exist? So, I'd say that ownership is all the difference for M/s not degree of submissiveness or experience and that it requires just as much work and commitment as D/s but has less differences than perhaps you are portraying. I suppose I'm with MsV in that I see a fully committed and devoted sub (who remember may also choose to have no limits) as no different to me other than that J chooses to own me and therefore removes all question of limits and consents and choices from my life from that point on. When it DOES change, is when IE steps in and the ties become so strong that disobedience becomes nigh on impossible, unthinkable, painful for the slave. Then we may be approaching something of the type of situation you describe. But I reach the edge of my experience here so I shall step back having hopefully taken the debate on a pace for you. Lovely subject by the way. Nice to see you around again. anjuli ~~~ “I, with a deeper instinct, choose a man who compels my strength, who makes enormous demands on me, who does not doubt my courage or my toughness, who does not believe me naive or innocent, who has the courage to treat me like a woman.” - Anais Nin ~~~ 30 Sep 08, 5:28 AM 662-935-655 US, 2 yrs  Reminds me of a story i heard recently of a would-be Dominant trying to boss a young lady around who apparently was vanilla - and ended up being asked if He knew He had control issues, to which He allegedly replied something to the effect of "of course i have control isssues, i'm the master". i was asked to translate this for the vanilla young lady. To my mind and knowing the young woman in question who is very religious and not likely to do any such thing - at least not until she is married and then only perhaps - He's lucky He did not end up with attempted rape charges or at least i think i talked her out of that since it was psychological coercion He was pushing and mostly she just found it hysterically funny. The very first thing a would-be Dom/Owner should have in place is, i'd say, consent. And an understanding of how far that consent goes - is it from a bottom/a sub/ a new slave/ an experienced slave and is it for a one time play session or a collaring or something in-between? The lists on the profiles here of activity a person is interested in could help a Dom/Owner or newbie Dom to figure that out, i'd say. Otherwise i'd say the Dom/Owner runs the risk of giving a command that won't be obeyed. So i'd say to start - if i understand the OP - One would need clear communication and to know accurately just how far the dynamic has develloped, as opposed to how they wish it would develop. Does that make sense? i hope i understood the OP. And to any celebrating it today, L'Shana Tova (Jewish New Year) j/L Papa's owned always: still proudly wearing His Collar and Ring, rest in peace Beloved Master/Husband! "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose" Janis Joplin 1 Oct 08, 4:03 PM Red_Spark UK, 22 mths  Hi anjuli and thank you for your response and thoughts. anjuli wrote: Hmmm... I think the issue here is if you see submissive and slave as being points along a progressional path or as degrees of submissiveness. That's interesting because I don't really perceive it in either way. I agree with the wiki definition you quoted of a slave as "a submissive (by nature) who is in the position of being owned and has ceded all control to a Master" - that concept is clear enough to me - but I don't think that slaves have necessarily progressed ~further~ along their path nor that they have a greater 'degree of submissiveness' - simply that their calling and ultimate destination is ~different~ from that of a submissive, and that calling/destination is to be owned. I guess my point was, of course people screw up. Slaves, Masters, Owners, whoever, and just keep on trying, learning etc. When it DOES change, is when IE steps in and the ties become so strong that disobedience becomes nigh on impossible, unthinkable, painful for the slave. Then we may be approaching something of the type of situation you describe. Sometimes it seems like it is a fine line between living, aspiring, and falling into the trap of pretending to be something that I am not, and believing it myself. Because no one can say "you have to do x, y and z in order to be a ~proper~ Owner, or a ~real~ slave". It naturally takes some time for IE to happen within an M/s, and it is something that is only known between the people concerned. Perhaps my idea of slavery/ownership is more strict than the reality, not in the physical sense but I suppose IE constitutes my sense of what slavery is. But I'm aware there is a stage before IE where a slave is still a slave even if IE has not been attained (or am I talking out my ass here?!). So actually, I probably was talking of IE and not of slavery as defined here. And also I think sometimes I set too high standards of myself; it's a tough call to get another person to that place and obviously does not happen overnight! There's little challenge to mastering and owning another if you just throw out any and all on the slightest failure or disobedience. Master of what? Nothing and nobody I should imagine. Well of course. That would be like a boss sacking a worker for making one mistake. I wasn't meaning it in such a literal sense, but trying to unpick how the dynamic works. No one in their right mind expects perfection, but when something such as that occurs, it disturbs the balance because no matter how briefly, the slave is seizing control. Of course, that doesn't rock any self-respecting M because it is exactly just a 'glitch' so to speak; an awkward bump in the normal state of affairs which s/he will deal with and move on with lessons being learned by both parties. 1 Oct 08, 4:16 PM Red_Spark UK, 22 mths  662-935-655 wrote: Reminds me of a story i heard recently of a would-be Dominant trying to boss a young lady around who apparently was vanilla - and ended up being asked if He knew He had control issues LOL. One would need clear communication and to know accurately just how far the dynamic has develloped, as opposed to how they wish it would develop. Very good point, 662-935-655, thank you. There is some kind of Domly discombobulation that occurs when one realises that, perhaps, the 'dynamic' has not developed quite as far as one would like to believe. However, it can also work in the opposite way, with an unseasonal drop in temperature (so to speak) acting as a timely reminder of the usual higher levels one has become accustomed to enjoying. And to any celebrating it today, L'Shana Tova (Jewish New Year) I may be a day late, but happy Jewish New Year to you too. 17 Nov 08, 10:33 PM Mistress_Tiara UK, 22 mths  Red_Spark wrote: I take it as meaning, not necessarily to hold back on your “order”, but actually to focus firstly on getting your forces (or second-in-command) into such a position that there is a 100% certainty s/he/they will obey. I think this observation is spot on. For a relationship to have arrived at the stage of Ownership, the Dominant needs to have gotten their 'forces' into such a position (at least for a high majority of the time). Red_Spark wrote: So for a Dominant, the idea as I have always perceived it is to have a strategy and pursue it to get in place a situation where the command you want to make will be obeyed. For some things this can happen immediately; your submissive finds them easy. Other things could take years or even decades to achieve. It's necessary to “do the ground work” so to speak. Yes, without the ground work, M/s could never be achieved. How far into their journey in M/s the involved parties are I'm sure alters deeply over time. Red_Spark wrote: I am inclined to think that a slave, by definition, *cannot* disobey a direct order/request from their M. So if an s-type disobeys an order, they are not a slave (no matter what they call themselves or what their M labels them) but rather a submissive. I can see the theory here, but I suspect it would only apply of one owned a robot. Red_Spark wrote: But slaves are not always perfect! There will undoubtedly in most cases be some times when a slave might disobey, or speak disrespectfully to his/her M, or refuse to carry something out – since we are all human, and have times we are not feeling so good, or get in a bad mood, or get distracted… not an excuse, but in reality it happens That's just part of owning a human being surely? Red_Spark wrote: my point is that people are not perfect. But if an s-type consciously makes a disobedient act like that, would it be said that actually they are not a slave, that it is impossible for them to be a slave because if they were, they *couldn't* have done that thing? I suppose one could argue that as part of Internal Enslavement theory, but I think your comment below is more relevant. Errors are bound to occur. Human beings are emotional creatures whether they are property or not. I personally think that effort and overall intention and performance must be used as an assessment tool to weigh this up. Red_Spark wrote: such a situation is simply a glitch in the grand scheme of things, and it would be better for them to continue to think of themselves as M/s and just keep progressing to more “success” (by their definition)? That seems to me to be the more pragmatic and compassionate way to proceed. Repeated error/ attitude problems/ dishonesty, etc would be a serious problem, but I think the occasional non intentional lapse is simply human and as long as improvement continues is not a major problem. *~*Mistress Tiara*~* 18 Nov 08, 4:22 PM jakesemma US(WA), 14 mths  You know, I don't equate submission to being a slave. being a slave means you are owned property... I think you can be a "bad" slave... but not "less" of a slave. struggling with submission, or surrender and obedience is something that many people have troubles with for a while. I could say a lot more on this topic, but it probably wouldn't really drive the discussion forward because I need some time to put my thoughts together better. 18 Nov 08, 9:31 PM 662-935-655 US, 2 yrs  re "bad slave" remark by Jake's Emma, i get the impression some Owner/Doms like the slave to act out - and i totally, so totally, don't get that dynamic. Which is okay as i'm not required to approve of O/other's relationships; however, the whole idea is very confusing to this one. j/L Papa's owned always: still proudly wearing His Collar and Ring, rest in peace Beloved Master/Husband! alias "granny" matrika ye olde crone, blessed be! 19 Nov 08, 12:02 AM jakesemma US(WA), 14 mths  662-935-655 wrote: re "bad slave" remark by Jake's Emma, i get the impression some Owner/Doms like the slave to act out - and i totally, so totally, don't get that dynamic. Which is okay as i'm not required to approve of O/other's relationships; however, the whole idea is very confusing to this one. That is NOT what I was refering too. I was refering to a untrained slave, or a slave who fights their "surrender" at times. being bad doesn't make them "less" of a slave. it just means they struggle and maybe are a bad slave for a while.. it doesn't make them "not" a slave.... Edit : And if their owner WANTS a specific behavior, than how are they bad? they aren't because they are pleasing the one who owns them. Edited 19 Nov 08, 12:03 AM by jakesemma