RE: is it change or is it trust (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

darkenchantment -> RE: is it change or is it trust (2/1/2011 4:12:57 PM)

I don't believe that anyone who has your best interests at heart should want you to change in order to be anything but the best you can be, for yourself. If you are a sub/slave with a dom/me, then this is a sufficiently positive reflection on their role in your relationship. They should, after all, want to be proud of you. And for anyone who does not have your best interests at heart, you should not be changing anyway.

Trust is a gift; it can be given by one person to another, but it should be earned. Don't trust me, for example, because I tell you to. Trust me because your insight and experience lead you to believe that it is safe and life enhancing for you to do so. Hence, it is something that can only be earned, and given, with the passing of time.

Failure to change = lack of submission? No, I don't think so. I think it more likely involves a relationship that is not really going anywhere; or perhaps one in which people have become safe and comfortable in their ways. Change can be a very positive thing; and as has been said earlier, also a very scary thing. For some, its only possible with much kicking and screaming - and not of the arousing kind! To be in a relationship with someone who nurtures your best abilities and requires you to grow into the best you can be, for both of you, is a beautiful thing. Yet, like everything else in this world, maybe its not for everyone. But for those who seek it, a passage to real joy.



sexyred1 -> RE: is it change or is it trust (2/1/2011 4:15:03 PM)

I would never change my personality to suit someone else, whether it was D/s or vanilla. I am who I am. I don't see submission as a vehicle to change for someone unilaterally.

However, I do evolve and refine what I do as life goes on and situations thrust me into learning more about myself.

I believe you should be open to growth within a given relationship and hopefully the growth is at the same pace, but even if it is staggered, it is healthy to grow.

You may find, however, that the ways in which you both develop or grow are not conducive to remaining compatible; in which case, the relationship would suffer or end.

I don't see the topic as involving trust; that to me is a different issue aside from the fact that I would expect to trust someone I entered into a relationship with.

If he wanted me to change, that would be a problem for me. I will compromise, always; but not change my essence.



sblady -> RE: is it change or is it trust (2/1/2011 4:17:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: osf


I didn't say change couldn't happen but one needs to be sure it is possible before beginning a relationship



Again, absolutely.

However, if one isn't willing to make said changes, what's the purpose of pursuing a relationship? At times it appeared that I should be open to change simply because I clicked that little submissive box. There's a person behind that box with their own set of beliefs; some of those beliefs cannot or will not be compromised for anyone.



SourandSweet -> RE: is it change or is it trust (2/2/2011 6:02:46 AM)

What kind of change are we talking about?

Physically I've changed.  He 'made' me have my very long hair cut to shoulder length.  I cried at the time, but afterwards had to admit that it did look better, and now I'm the one who reminds him I need a trip to the salon again!

Mentally I've changed.  I've started to have more confidence in myself and in my abilities.  Hey - I've got the most wonderful dom that ever walked - I can't be that terrible after all!

Emotionally I've changed.  I'm stronger and won't take tolerate anyone treating me badly.  I'm more capable of telling people what I really think/ feel.

I couldn't have done any of this if I didn't trust both him and the strength of our relationship.

From the 'kink' side it's more complicated.  He's a sadist.  I'm not a masochist - not emotionally, physically, not in any way.  We didn't plan to fall in love but we did.  I haven't changed in that I'm still not a masochist, but I have changed in that physically I can take more from him than I ever would for any other man.  Part of that is due to my trust that he may hurt me, but would never harm me (an important distinction for me).  Part is due to the fact that I've simply got more used to it.

What hasn't changed are my moral/ world views.  We differ alot on many of our beliefs.  He could technically, for example, make me eat meat, but he could never make me enjoy doing so!  He wouldn't even attempt to change the core of 'me' much as that 'me' may irritate him at times!  As he says, my imperfections make me perfect.

:-)



CreativeDominant -> RE: is it change or is it trust (2/2/2011 7:58:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lally2

somewhere else a thread evolved from the topic of changing in order to adapt to another person in youre life and how much do we do that or are prepared to do that.  into - if a sub doesnt change enough to accept dominance then ultimately they are not submitting.

i dont really see it so much as an issue of changing in order to adapt to a person, but, from a subs perspective its more about trusting youreself to relinquish control.
But do you see how someone could use that to explain her lack of submission to someone that she may have agreed to submit to?  I am going to play Devil's Advocate here for this post.  Things are going along and she is submitting to this and to that and to this...but they are things that she would normally do for any partner, vanilla or dominant.  And there may even be some things that she does that she would not do for just any partner but which she might do for a great majority.  Then, comes that day when something is asked for that is beyond the easy...or worse yet, something is asked for that is not all that hard (she may even have done it before)...and she balks.  Rather than lay it on herself...her own behavior...is it not easier for some to say that their non-submission is coming from an issue of trust within themselves? 
Don't get me wrong...please.  I understand that trust has to be built.  But how long should the process take?  How many times of running into an issue of "not trusting the process" should a dominant face up to and try to guide her through before he begins to question how much trust his submissive really does have in his leadership?

quote:

i dont believe we do change supersonically, we adapt for sure.  but surely its more about trusting ourselves to absorb the changes that will take place without the fear of losing our identity along the way.

is this a big issue - failure to 'change'.  is it really about not submitting.  or is it more, as i suspect, more about not allowing youreself to trust the process.
I don't deny that there is adaptation in many aspects rather than true change.  And, in fact, in many areas I think this is the better route.  Sure...many times we look at a married couple that we've known since before they were married and we say "look how he/she has changed".  And in many ways they have...but in many ways they have adapted themselves to the dynamic versus changed themselves for the person.  But even in adaptation, there has to be trust.  But even more than the trust...in MY eyes anyway...is the desire to form the best relationship/dynamic with this person that we can and that DOES require the abilty to adapt and change (if need be)and the hope that this person will recognize the work and appreciate it rather than misuse it.  But notice that hope comes into play...and has to...before the trust is built.  Trust in others is built on what positive things others do with what we give them.  And that DOES happen on both sides of the kneel.

quote:

im curious what experience people have had from both sides of the kneel with this.

i know where ive evolved from, but im not going to write that now.
I know where I have evolved from too...and got my heart broke along the way when someone fell back into their old patterns and did not trust in all that I had shown previously.  This is another one of those times when baggage comes into play...I think that many times, the inability to trust the process...to submit to something hard...to yield control...comes from what you've been shown in the past.  The problem is that many times, the past that you are working from does not include the person in front of you right now.



NihilusZero -> RE: is it change or is it trust (2/2/2011 8:49:39 AM)

People "believe" in personal change all the time. Everyone has things they want to "change" about themselves" and everyone has things that get changed about them that aren't actively conscious. It's just the idea that (gasp!) someone else might be the impetus behind those changes that causes some suspicious reactions (some people are hypersensitive about things that would feel to them as some hypothetical loss of self-autonomy).



NihilusZero -> RE: is it change or is it trust (2/2/2011 9:01:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

But do you see how someone could use that to explain her lack of submission to someone that she may have agreed to submit to?  I am going to play Devil's Advocate here for this post.  Things are going along and she is submitting to this and to that and to this...but they are things that she would normally do for any partner, vanilla or dominant.  And there may even be some things that she does that she would not do for just any partner but which she might do for a great majority.  Then, comes that day when something is asked for that is beyond the easy...or worse yet, something is asked for that is not all that hard (she may even have done it before)...and she balks.  Rather than lay it on herself...her own behavior...is it not easier for some to say that their non-submission is coming from an issue of trust within themselves? 
Don't get me wrong...please.  I understand that trust has to be built.  But how long should the process take?  How many times of running into an issue of "not trusting the process" should a dominant face up to and try to guide her through before he begins to question how much trust his submissive really does have in his leadership?

This hits on a very interesting issue that I've thought about for some time: that submission, in a certain sense, has to be measured by the transcendence of comfort zones. In the way that (based on an old adage that I've forgotten the entirety of) "courage" has to be measured by a person being in difficult and potentially painful situations. If someone has lived a life of complete comfort and leisure, how can you determine their 'courage'?

I think it's entirely possible for two people to be so finely attuned to each other that a functional obedience-based relationship can happen without there ever being a real slip because no difficult conflict ever shows up. It's certainly an attractive possibility, but not very likely.

In most cases, though, the mettle of a relationship will be built by the ability to drive over the speedbumps (with, in a general sense, the s-type needing to submit where uncomfortable and the D-type needing to make appropriate, sensible relationship-decisions where uncomfortable). This, in the end, comes down to degrees of trust (in a more pervasive sense than normally used). And that is typically noticeable based on the degree of effort put into the relationship and how often an adversarial, suspicious mindset appears to be the default reaction, rather than the aforementioned trust.



CreativeDominant -> RE: is it change or is it trust (2/2/2011 11:42:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

But do you see how someone could use that to explain her lack of submission to someone that she may have agreed to submit to?  I am going to play Devil's Advocate here for this post.  Things are going along and she is submitting to this and to that and to this...but they are things that she would normally do for any partner, vanilla or dominant.  And there may even be some things that she does that she would not do for just any partner but which she might do for a great majority.  Then, comes that day when something is asked for that is beyond the easy...or worse yet, something is asked for that is not all that hard (she may even have done it before)...and she balks.  Rather than lay it on herself...her own behavior...is it not easier for some to say that their non-submission is coming from an issue of trust within themselves? 
Don't get me wrong...please.  I understand that trust has to be built.  But how long should the process take?  How many times of running into an issue of "not trusting the process" should a dominant face up to and try to guide her through before he begins to question how much trust his submissive really does have in his leadership?

This hits on a very interesting issue that I've thought about for some time: that submission, in a certain sense, has to be measured by the transcendence of comfort zones. In the way that (based on an old adage that I've forgotten the entirety of) "courage" has to be measured by a person being in difficult and potentially painful situations. If someone has lived a life of complete comfort and leisure, how can you determine their 'courage'?

I think it's entirely possible for two people to be so finely attuned to each other that a functional obedience-based relationship can happen without there ever being a real slip because no difficult conflict ever shows up. It's certainly an attractive possibility, but not very likely.

In most cases, though, the mettle of a relationship will be built by the ability to drive over the speedbumps (with, in a general sense, the s-type needing to submit where uncomfortable and the D-type needing to make appropriate, sensible relationship-decisions where uncomfortable). This, in the end, comes down to degrees of trust (in a more pervasive sense than normally used). And that is typically noticeable based on the degree of effort put into the relationship and how often an adversarial, suspicious mindset appears to be the default reaction, rather than the aforementioned trust.
Exactly.  I have run into that adversarial mindset on several occasions throughout my life, as I am sure most people have.  But whereas I came to expect it in a vanilla relationship, given the generation I was born in and grew up with, I admit that I did not expect to find it quite as much in the D/s world.  After all, a submissive yields, right?  She has turned over control in many...or few...areas to the dominant, right?  She has trusted him in those areas, right?  For the most part, I have found that to be true.  And yet...there are areas, even areas in which control has been given over, that begin to have adversarial reactions.  In an area that is new and more difficult, I can even understand...at least somewhat...the default to a position of uncertainty which may include adversarial behavior of some sort.  Where I have had bigger problems is when the area is one in which control has been yielded and what is being added may be new but not necessarily difficult.  I experienced this in my last relationship and..to be frank...it surprised and disappointed me.



lally2 -> RE: is it change or is it trust (2/2/2011 11:45:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

People are naturally scared of any process that feels like a loss of autonomy or a loss of "self". Everything about us has the potential for change. Some people just become attached to a certain self-concept and do not wish to deviate from that. Then again, that very thing could be said about being slave-minded in such a way that the desire to adapt is paramount.

i wonder how much of being a slave is about wanting to absorb change and adapt to their Master - are subs and slaves change junkies?  in a way stretching to accommodate anothers expectations to adapt, means that most must have a strong 'change' thrust going on in there.  those that find it hard to change or are wearing those suspicion-coloured-glasses must have a tougher time.

This really becomes a question of how much someone is genuinely interested in yielding or what someone's potential for doing such is (depending on which prerequisites are met).

i agree.  im going to assume that most subs or slaves who are not kink-only wired must want on some level, to yield.  the problem will always be i think - how do you get a person to trust themselves to trust someone else on a fundamental level and to what level.
 
i wonder if once a level of trust has been reached whether the changes that occur start to snowball.
 
im curious about this process, i think it could be as limitless as the people involved - once that trust is gained.




CreativeDominant -> RE: is it change or is it trust (2/2/2011 12:13:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lally2

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

People are naturally scared of any process that feels like a loss of autonomy or a loss of "self". Everything about us has the potential for change. Some people just become attached to a certain self-concept and do not wish to deviate from that. Then again, that very thing could be said about being slave-minded in such a way that the desire to adapt is paramount.

i wonder how much of being a slave is about wanting to absorb change and adapt to their Master - are subs and slaves change junkies?  in a way stretching to accommodate anothers expectations to adapt, means that most must have a strong 'change' thrust going on in there.  those that find it hard to change or are wearing those suspicion-coloured-glasses must have a tougher time.

This really becomes a question of how much someone is genuinely interested in yielding or what someone's potential for doing such is (depending on which prerequisites are met).

i agree.  im going to assume that most subs or slaves who are not kink-only wired must want on some level, to yield.  the problem will always be i think - how do you get a person to trust themselves to trust someone else on a fundamental level and to what level.
 
i wonder if once a level of trust has been reached whether the changes that occur start to snowball.
 
im curious about this process, i think it could be as limitless as the people involved - once that trust is gained.


But that still does not answer the question posed by myself or by Nihilus...how much of this is based on an inability to trust oneself to trust and how much is based on not wanting to submit on a certain day or at a certain time or in a certain mood, etc., etc., etc.?  Nor does it answer the question of "why choose the adversarial position...no matter how it is labeled or what it actually is whether it be inability to take the leap of hope and faith, inability to give over the next degree of trust, or not wanting to submit to THAT...instead of taking that little leap of faith and hope and having the trust build because the dominant does not BETRAY the faith and hope placed in him?



lally2 -> RE: is it change or is it trust (2/2/2011 12:26:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prinsexx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

To me it indicates a basic lack of compatibility. I'm incapable of changing my core personality and beliefs.

I think this has hit the nail squarely on the head.
From my then submissive position I always strove to necome what I felt was a 'better' submissive. Looking back it always was a matter of incompatabilty.... my attempt to change myself in order to fit. Of course it's a process doomed to failure as what happened was that the 'inner' me struggled and eventually fought back. Released myself. And walked.
It was not a failure in submission.
It's all a question of uniqueness unfortuneately. A question of two people who are uniqyes finding one another. if you have a dynamic within a compatable, loving relationship then I think you have everything. The submission fits the dominance and vice versa.
I am currently finfing that the one who is submitting to me at the moment is absilutely unqie and I love that uniqieness. And he doesn't jave to change one iota. It's rare and quite beautiful.



i agree, the core of a person has to be part of the attraction.

i think that submission to someone as a process can be a very subtle thing and perhaps its those subtleties we are most aware of, theyre the ones we analize possibly, because theyre in the subscript, the little giveaways that tell me more about the guy than the obvious stuff.

when you feel the process reel you in i think its normal for a while to take two steps forward, one step back as you get the feeling of the authority and control involved.

often that process can spook you - oop! - too much right there, step back.  thats ok - two steps forward and you bend a little more.  a bit like fishing maybe [:D].

all along that process you are changing youre priorities maybe.  its starts out all about you as you find you way, gradually it becomes more about him then it gets symbiotic, hopefully and all about both of you.

i dont think im talking about core changes or stuff like how i fry an egg or make coffee - i think the changes i mean and were meant were all about that adaptation period.

maybe those that get stuck stay in the 'all about me' phase - for a variety of reasons we neednt get into now.



lally2 -> RE: is it change or is it trust (2/2/2011 1:47:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCdc

I'm not so sure about the whole, trusting yourself to relinquish control. That's a hesitance that I cannot understand when undertaking a relationship. I'm not saying that everyone is brave to wade in head first, but if you're hesitant over yourself, then I think that being in a relationship with another isn't a good thing at that time. Sort out yourself first, then find a relationship. I know it's not always ideal, but people want to move into shit so fast these days and it's almost a recipe for failure.


in a way sorting youreself out first is what i meant by trusting youreself to trust someone. i think if youre coming from a strong place inside its not such a risk to youre personal equilibrium if it goes wrong.

its the fall out from broken trust that hurts the most and how that hurt affects you.  my theory is [:)] - lol - that if the trust is extended from within you first rather than placed squarely onto the other person you can withdraw or increase that trust accordingly.  eventually the trust you extend is encorporated into the trust the other person has extended also and that connection is made.




sblady -> RE: is it change or is it trust (2/2/2011 1:56:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lally2

i dont think im talking about core changes or stuff like how i fry an egg or make coffee - i think the changes i mean and were meant were all about that adaptation period.



Thank you for mentioning core changes. I understand a Dom requesting or wanting certain changes that will bring edification or growth. However, in most scenarios, the majority of the changes went against my core and moral beliefs and though it may have led to growth in certain areas, the growth wouldn't have been positive for me; especially when some of those things were previously discussed hard limits. Anyway, that's one of the reasons I came to the conclusion that I could be submissive within a traditional relationship and not D/s based relationships as D/s is so closely entwined with BDSM. Though I'm interested in a bit of kink, that bit is hardly a bleep on the BDSM scale.

I hope my comments weren't too off topic and many pardons if it is. [;)]



NihilusZero -> RE: is it change or is it trust (2/2/2011 2:02:11 PM)

"Core changes" don't really mean much in an informative sense. It's basically another term for "hard limits" that is worded in a more protective sort of way (particularly in terms of moralities).

It really depends on, again, the expanse and degree of submission someone is actually willing to agree to.



lally2 -> RE: is it change or is it trust (2/2/2011 2:02:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: LPslittleclip

some parts of my self i dont want to change like my helping nature. for those things i would have a hard time trying to change them as it is so much a part of me. luckly my Mistress enjoys this part of me so no change there. how i greet someone or where i sit with my mistress was a change easily done as it was not a major change in my basic personality. as i trust my Mistress i only question something that i do not fully understand or need clairification to enable me to complete the task

No, I wouldn't want to change those parts of you that I consider core parts of your personality.  That's part of why I wanted you in the first place.  Still, we've had changes.  Certainly in our positions in attitudes, if not personalities. 

I see what lally is saying here in that case.  If you hadn't had trust in Me and trust in yourself, this dynamic wouldn't be where it is today.  Part of that had to happen in you.  Yes, it had something to do with where I was leading us, but that had to be an internal process for you as well.



i think this is the thing, its a change in attitudes, thank you! - it isnt about changing core elements in a person at all.

yup yup [:D] - his trust in you and his trust in himself to negotiate his increasing trust in you whilst absorbing all that you wish from him necessitates a change in attitudes, responses, approaches and subtleties.  these things arent core changing at all.

so. then, i suppose we're back to the initial question - if the changes in attitudes, responses, approaches and subtleties dont happen then arguably that is a lack of desire to submit.  but why, when these changes arent earth shattering.

i think then, it must go back to trust, but trust in youreself to let that submission flow that opens you up to a level of vulnerability.

having gone through the gammit myself its interesting to look at the process with fresh eyes.



lally2 -> RE: is it change or is it trust (2/2/2011 2:26:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: darkenchantment
Failure to change = lack of submission? No, I don't think so. I think it more likely involves a relationship that is not really going anywhere; or perhaps one in which people have become safe and comfortable in their ways. Change can be a very positive thing; and as has been said earlier, also a very scary thing. For some, its only possible with much kicking and screaming - and not of the arousing kind! To be in a relationship with someone who nurtures your best abilities and requires you to grow into the best you can be, for both of you, is a beautiful thing. Yet, like everything else in this world, maybe its not for everyone. But for those who seek it, a passage to real joy.


hi, welcome to the boards [:)]

no i dont think so either.  i think that people come here for specific reasons, some for the kink, some for the authority lead dynamic of Ds or Ms.  i doubt there are many people who would put themselves through the scaryness of this if they were not totally driven to be here.

so, i dont believe its a lack of wanting to submit.  it might be trepidation, lack of faith in themselves, fear of letting go and fear of this changing thing.

its about levels too.  i remember when i first started talking to my exMaster, the levels of submission he talked about scared me stupid! - me? - is he crazy!.  and yet he took me there and it wasnt scary at all, because of the person he was.

im sure it is down to compatibility between two people.  and of course the entire topic of authority, control and power, as is being discussed elsewhere here.

for me, back when and before then, it was a road bump more than anything else.  i wanted it but i was pants at it. partly because i just had not let go of the reins one iota, but also because i paired up badly back then.

i suspect there are some who want very much to let go and relax, release and let the process take them over - inner gremlins, inability to trust and let go hold them back.

ive read it enough times to be honest.  'i find trust hard' ... 'i cant seem to let go of....' .... 'i want to but ...' ... 'he's a great Dom, but i cant...'

i believe they really do want to too -

so maybe this is all about finding out that it isnt about changing a whole persona, simply trusting enough to give the process a chance.

i dunno.  im not sure ive hit this on the head yet..., prolly cos its far too complex in the end.



lally2 -> RE: is it change or is it trust (2/2/2011 2:38:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sblady


quote:

ORIGINAL: osf


I didn't say change couldn't happen but one needs to be sure it is possible before beginning a relationship



Again, absolutely.

However, if one isn't willing to make said changes, what's the purpose of pursuing a relationship? At times it appeared that I should be open to change simply because I clicked that little submissive box. There's a person behind that box with their own set of beliefs; some of those beliefs cannot or will not be compromised for anyone.


well apart from the fact that we all do change, we have to, in order to fit with each other.  small changes though, not massive changes - i think we all agree on that.

but it seems to behoove a submissive to change more than the Dominant? is that a fair suggestion?

we as subs and slaves shift to the stronger force, without that change nothing happens.

so what is that change really - are we all amazingly powerful people, striding through life making huge and important decisions all day long - i know im not.  i know that some do.  with our Dominants to a greater or lesser extent therefore we 'change' our attitude, responses and reactions to please them.  that in of itself is a level of submission we dont tend to extend to anyone else (as much) (if at all)



lally2 -> RE: is it change or is it trust (2/2/2011 2:47:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SourandSweet

What kind of change are we talking about?

Physically I've changed.  He 'made' me have my very long hair cut to shoulder length.  I cried at the time, but afterwards had to admit that it did look better, and now I'm the one who reminds him I need a trip to the salon again!

... then theres weight loss, fitness, body mods -

Mentally I've changed.  I've started to have more confidence in myself and in my abilities.  Hey - I've got the most wonderful dom that ever walked - I can't be that terrible after all!

this is a powerful change, one i can admit to too.  accepting who and what i am means that i understand myself far better and why i am the way i am.  so now, being more self aware i have become more self assured.  this is one of the reallly great things that comes with submission i think.  the realisation that we are not push overs, that in our own right we're very strong and we can choose who we are submissive with.

Emotionally I've changed.  I'm stronger and won't take tolerate anyone treating me badly.  I'm more capable of telling people what I really think/ feel.

yes! - its odd isnt it! - how did that happen. 

I couldn't have done any of this if I didn't trust both him and the strength of our relationship.

From the 'kink' side it's more complicated.  He's a sadist.  I'm not a masochist - not emotionally, physically, not in any way.  We didn't plan to fall in love but we did.  I haven't changed in that I'm still not a masochist, but I have changed in that physically I can take more from him than I ever would for any other man.  Part of that is due to my trust that he may hurt me, but would never harm me (an important distinction for me).  Part is due to the fact that I've simply got more used to it.

for me its about being in submission to a someone i want to please - if im not then im a full on wimp, if i am i can take far more than id ever imagine.  it must have something to do with endorphins maybe??

What hasn't changed are my moral/ world views.  We differ alot on many of our beliefs.  He could technically, for example, make me eat meat, but he could never make me enjoy doing so!  He wouldn't even attempt to change the core of 'me' much as that 'me' may irritate him at times!  As he says, my imperfections make me perfect.

agreed.  the core of you is who he was attracted to in the first place, so why would he change that.

:-)




lally2 -> RE: is it change or is it trust (2/2/2011 3:22:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Don't get me wrong...please.  I understand that trust has to be built.  But how long should the process take?  How many times of running into an issue of "not trusting the process" should a dominant face up to and try to guide her through before he begins to question how much trust his submissive really does have in his leadership?


hm, good question. im glad this has been brought up.  its a joint responsibility isnt it, in the end.  how much does a sub want this and how far is a sub prepared to go.  i have to go back to the idea that a person needs to trust themselves with their own emotions and feelings and reactions to a person or an action or event.  if they are insecure in those areas then its an internal issue not an external (Dom) issue.  i dont happen to think it is about trusting the Dom, if the relationship has grown and developed otherwise.  i think its about trusting themselves to handle it.  so then someone could say 'but ah, thats when the Dom mops up, holds the shaken sub and eases her through' - and id agree, but if the sub lacks trust and security within themselves they are unlikely to be able to trust anyone else sufficiently either.  when a person has such a deep trust issue going on its then i suppose a question of - youve hit a limit and can go no further.  if its play theyve done before with someone else but wont with theyre Dom then thats a bit odd really - maybe they went home and cried for a week and vowed they wouldnt try that again - but again that brings us back to trusting the Dom and of course not always getting to choose the things they like to do against the things theyd prefer not to do or hate to do.  then id surmise that theyre idea of submission hasnt ridden that road bump yet and taken them beyond - its all about them.  maybe thats a bit harsh.  but having been that way myself in the early days i think im reasonably qualified to suggest it. [:)]

MY eyes anyway...is the desire to form the best relationship/dynamic with this person that we can and that DOES require the abilty to adapt and change (if need be)and the hope that this person will recognize the work and appreciate it rather than misuse it.  But notice that hope comes into play...and has to...before the trust is built.  Trust in others is built on what positive things others do with what we give them.  And that DOES happen on both sides of the kneel.

i agree completely.  adaption and change is i think completely inevitable if its ever going to work.  the Dom might be steering the ship, but the sub isnt just a passenger.  trust in others is built on positive things others do with what we give them. yes.  its about extending enough trust to them from within youreself and them responding and returning trust back.  when the flow of trust starts to build i wonder even if the changes and adaptation that occurs is even all that noticeable.  we hit symbiosis, free flow.
 
 a killer to any relationship is when a person cannot trust and ive made it a personal exploration in trying to understand where that lack of trust comes from.  when you pour youreself into someone and yet they still dont trust, you have to accept that if all youve ever been is constant, genuine and true the problem rests with them.  it isnt you they dont trust, its themselves.


quote:

im curious what experience people have had from both sides of the kneel with this.

i know where ive evolved from, but im not going to write that now.
I know where I have evolved from too...and got my heart broke along the way when someone fell back into their old patterns and did not trust in all that I had shown previously.  This is another one of those times when baggage comes into play...I think that many times, the inability to trust the process...to submit to something hard...to yield control...comes from what you've been shown in the past.  The problem is that many times, the past that you are working from does not include the person in front of you right now.




hm, see above  - its all to do with past hurt and baggage and if someone cannot move on from that and if they are someone who paints everyone with the same colour its entirely theyre issue, not youres.



lally2 -> RE: is it change or is it trust (2/2/2011 3:38:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

But that still does not answer the question posed by myself or by Nihilus...how much of this is based on an inability to trust oneself to trust and how much is based on not wanting to submit on a certain day or at a certain time or in a certain mood, etc., etc., etc.?  Nor does it answer the question of "why choose the adversarial position...no matter how it is labeled or what it actually is whether it be inability to take the leap of hope and faith, inability to give over the next degree of trust, or not wanting to submit to THAT...instead of taking that little leap of faith and hope and having the trust build because the dominant does not BETRAY the faith and hope placed in him?


ok, casting my mind back to those early days - loooooong ago [:D].  it was all about me frankly.  it had nothing at all to do with trust whatsoever because i just didnt extend any.  because i hadnt extended it the question of doing something 'out there' was completely beyond me.  i paddled in my little puddle of wanting this but had no clue what i was doing or how to get there.  i didnt listen to the Dominant and i didnt respond to him submissively unless i was in the mood to do so.  i was a newbie.  i DID want this and here i am now a fair bit wiser.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875