Inherent contradiction in D/s?

Inherent contradiction in D/s? (Full Version)

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

Message

RavenMuse -> Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/21/2006 4:19:05 AM)
OK so Subs have a need to serve, yes, to focus on the needs of their Dom, to bring pleasure to their Master, make his life easier in any way they can. But it is a need of theirs, fullfilling it makes THEM happy, so doesn't that make it "About" the sub? Doms have a need to control, direct, do things their way, take up the responcibility for the relationship. But doesn't that responcibility mean ensuring both sets of needs are met. Given they should have already identified most of their own needs, doesn't that mean a lot of their focus and attention is on finding and learning the subs needs? Again, doesn't that make it "About" the sub? Just a wayward thought on a rainy Sunday afternoon. It maybe "My way" but it is ABOUT both of us [:)]

ScooterTrash -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/21/2006 4:23:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RavenMuse OK so Subs have a need to serve, yes, to focus on the needs of their Dom, to bring pleasure to their Master, make his life easier in any way they can. But it is a need of theirs, fullfilling it makes THEM happy, so doesn't that make it "About" the sub? Doms have a need to control, direct, do things their way, take up the responcibility for the relationship. But doesn't that responcibility mean ensuring both sets of needs are met. Given they should have already identified most of their own needs, doesn't that mean a lot of their focus and attention is on finding and learning the subs needs? Again, doesn't that make it "About" the sub? Just a wayward thought on a rainy Sunday afternoon. It maybe "My way" but it is ABOUT both of us [:)] In principle I have to agree with you Raven...but then again, it's a bit like which came first, the chicken or the egg? If we didn't require service, then they would have no outlet...plus the Dominant can allow service or not, so it's still the Dominant controlling the environment. But yes, it's mutually fulfilling, so I don't know that it's always about either, it's about all involved.

RavenMuse -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/21/2006 4:28:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash In principle I have to agree with you Raven...but then again, it's a bit like which came first, the chicken or the egg? If we didn't require service, then they would have no outlet...plus the Dominant can allow service or not, so it's still the Dominant controlling the environment. But yes, it's mutually fulfilling, so I don't know that it's always about either, it's about all involved. I was looking at that element in isolation having noticed it was somewhat a contradiction, sort of the counter argument to the "Its all about the Dom" view. As I state at the end there, IMO when you look at the big picture, it is about BOTH[:)]

MsIncognito -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/21/2006 4:39:20 AM)
If you take someone who has a need to control and someone who has a need to be controlled and you put them together what you have is two people who will both get what they need out of the relationship (let's not get into the nuances of what is controlled and how, let's keep it simple). The dom is getting what s/he needs and the sub gets what s/he needs. Both keep doing it because it meets their needs. It's a win-win situation. What you left out of your description is that the sub also continues to find ways to please the dom - so it goes both ways. A healthy relationship is about give and take, whether all the really DomlyDoms or the supersubbiesubs want to admit it. This is why even when people live this "lifestyle" in an earnest 24/7 manner I still think there is an element of fantasy - the fantasy that its all about the dom. And I'll go one further and say there's nothing wrong with this little bit of fantasy if it keeps the relationship fresh and interesting for both parties. Ultimately a relationship is about both people no matter what the flavour. The reality is that doms and subs are people and people are self motivated. What motivates people may be different (some may be motivated by a need to control and others may be motivated by a need to be controlled) but ultimately it's self interest that drives us all. If we can find a partner who's needs complement ours in a way that meets those needs (ie self interest) then I see no harm in that...and if people want/need to believe a harmless little fantasy that it's all about the dom all the time then who does that harm? Nobody, as far as I can see.

meatcleaver -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/21/2006 4:44:56 AM)
It's always all about the sub. You have just to look at the profiles and the demands of your average sub. They are looking for someone who can service them to their requirements. The often stated need of the sub which many state as 'the need to serve' is a nonsense if you analyse the dynamic going on. They are not applying for a position such as a job where the Dom/boss has the power of choice and the sub/employee is paid in money or kind for their services. The sub has the power of contract over the Dom or simply moves on. Just an observation. This power dynamic between male dom and female sub is just the same as the power dynamic between men and women in vanilla relationships and has nothing to do with kink though it is dressed up that way. This is why I've always thought that the labels dom and sub are misnomers. The fact that a sub temporarily gives up power within the negotiated perameters of a relationship is irrelevent. This is why I can't take D/s relationships overly serious and just prefer to indulge in kink because if everyone is consenting, it means everyone has an equal say in the model of the relationship.

talibahh -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/21/2006 4:48:06 AM)
if i may RavenMuse, for me, as a slave, yes. i have a need to serve and make my Master happy, for me in turn to feel happy and fulfilled. i dont suggest it is about either the Dom or the sub/slave, but rather about the couple (or more in poly), each fulfilling AND having their needs, desires, wants fulfilled to enjoy a mutually satisfying and fulfilling relationship/bond. i am still fairly new, so forgive me please if i am wrong, but where does it say it has to be about either one or the other? Dom or sub? persay... isn't it about finding a match and then each building a bond with the other, to have a mutually satisfying relationship? i dont think either would remain if they didnt get at least some joy and fulfillment out of their role... humbly, tali sorry... edited for typos... having a bad night [&:]

RavenMuse -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/21/2006 4:59:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsIncognito and if people want/need to believe a harmless little fantasy that it's all about the dom all the time then who does that harm? Nobody, as far as I can see. Where it is the sub who falls into that fantasy, I quite agree. In fact some have a need to follow that fantasy. The responcibility for the relatioship as a whole however lies with the Dominant. It is built around "His way" according to "His rules". So long as He remembers that a relationship needs to fullfill both sets of needs then the sub falling into that fantasy isn't much of a problem. However, if He looses sight of it and falls into that fantasy Himself, or worse, both of them do, well, most on the boards here have heard, read or in some cases, experienced the train wreck that can follow.

Reflectivesoul -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/21/2006 5:00:01 AM)
smiles tali you are a smart cookie <edited to add> oh lord lets not discuss the train wrecks again Raven chuckles n passes out popcorn ( oh and before anyone gets the wrong idea... I'm talking about another thread entirely...)

darq -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/21/2006 5:03:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver It's always all about the sub. You have just to look at the profiles and the demands of your average sub. They are looking for someone who can service them to their requirements. The often stated need of the sub which many state as 'the need to serve' is a nonsense if you analyse the dynamic going on. They are not applying for a position such as a job where the Dom/boss has the power of choice and the sub/employee is paid in money or kind for their services. The sub has the power of contract over the Dom or simply moves on. Just an observation. This power dynamic between male dom and female sub is just the same as the power dynamic between men and women in vanilla relationships and has nothing to do with kink though it is dressed up that way. This is why I've always thought that the labels dom and sub are misnomers. The fact that a sub temporarily gives up power within the negotiated perameters of a relationship is irrelevent. This is why I can't take D/s relationships overly serious and just prefer to indulge in kink because if everyone is consenting, it means everyone has an equal say in the model of the relationship. Reading posts like this is almost enough to make you want to walk away from the lifestyle entirely. So much bitterness ...

gooddogbenji -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/21/2006 5:06:48 AM)
Look, Raven, take credit for this if you want, but just know that I've been saying it for years. It's all about me. Yours, benji

RavenMuse -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/21/2006 5:06:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: talibahh i am still fairly new, so forgive me please if i am wrong, but where does it say it has to be about* either one or the other? Dom or sub?* This was in part sparked by past threads/discussions about the premis that D/s is all about the Dom which crop up on the boards from time to time. As I mentioned to Scooter, what I wrote above is more a counterbalance argument to that. Personaly I quite agree, whilst things are done 'My way', the relationship itself is about my girl every bit as it is about me. I was refering to that apparently contradictory part of the dynamicin in isolation which runs contrary to the more usualy percieved focus of things.

MsIncognito -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/21/2006 5:07:56 AM)
Did I miss a train wreck? Damn! I hate it when that happens. quote: ORIGINAL: Reflectivesoul <edited to add> oh lord lets not discuss the train wrecks again Raven chuckles n passes out popcorn ( oh and before anyone gets the wrong idea... I'm talking about another thread entirely...)

RavenMuse -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/21/2006 5:08:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reflectivesoul <edited to add> oh lord lets not discuss the train wrecks again Raven chuckles n passes out popcorn ( oh and before anyone gets the wrong idea... I'm talking about another thread entirely...) You get the popcorn, I'll grab the cokes. Meet ya in the lobby [;)]

meatcleaver -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/21/2006 5:11:24 AM)
I wouldn't worry about it as there is no bitterness in it, it is just an observation. Any bitterness you see in my post is merely a projection on your part. I'm not after a sub so sleep easy, I've never been after a sub because I don't want to accommodate one in my life nor modify my behaviour for one. I do not want to be ruled by someone's fantasy. That is not bitterness, it's an intellectual decision.

sharainks -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/21/2006 5:11:58 AM)
To me its kind of a symbiotic relationship. Both require the other half to have it work. The dom without a sub has no one to dominate while the sub without a dom has no one to submit to. Both people fill the other's needs. If this were not so both people would be looking elsewhere. I've always thought the term submissive was a misnomer. Submissives can be very aggressive in seeking someone that is able to meet their need for dominance. Notice that I use the word need. Not want, not desire, but need. If this is an emotional need in the way that air, water, etc. is a physical need then you do what you have to to get that need met. Submissives will weed out those who are not capable of meeting their needs in the same way doms weed out those who aren't capable of serving them in the way they need.

LadyMedhbh -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/21/2006 5:12:13 AM)
I have to agree that it is about both the Dom/mes and subs needs being met. I also agree that the subs best interest should always be at the heart of the Dom/me. As a Dominant myself, I strive to make sure that My sub-hub and the subs that I train in session communicate with Me about their needs, anxieties, etc. A Dom/me has to take the responisibilty of her/his sub seriously. It is our responsibilty to make sure that our sub's mental/emotional/physical health are being cared for. It is the subs responsibility to make our lives easier and more relaxing. If both sets of needs are being met, both the Dom/me and sub feel tranquility in their relationship (whether that relationship is a long-term one, one based on sessions, or anything in between).

Reflectivesoul -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/21/2006 5:25:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsIncognito Did I miss a train wreck? Damn! I hate it when that happens. quote: ORIGINAL: Reflectivesoul <edited to add> oh lord lets not discuss the train wrecks again Raven chuckles n passes out popcorn ( oh and before anyone gets the wrong idea... I'm talking about another thread entirely...) Oh Hunny lmao * pushes Her over to the Mistress is worried thread wiff Her own box of popcorn and a coke* After you finish that one you gotta check out the one " and the problem with that is... ( or something along those lines.... OP urantiam)

Reflectivesoul -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/21/2006 5:27:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RavenMuse quote: ORIGINAL: Reflectivesoul <edited to add> oh lord lets not discuss the train wrecks again Raven chuckles n passes out popcorn ( oh and before anyone gets the wrong idea... I'm talking about another thread entirely...) You get the popcorn, I'll grab the cokes. Meet ya in the lobby [;)] I'm already there lol just waitin for Ms I to catch up with Us lol lol oh and we have ta bring tali grins she's just too cute to leave behind, plus she lets me paddle her hiney winks

puella -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/21/2006 5:28:02 AM)
I think that the word you are looking for is symbiotic. It's not necessarily contradictoray... it's just symbiotic. It doesn't have to be a contentious relationship for it ti be D/s... the two work and fit together naturally. It shouldn't have to be a bad thing that a submissive takes pleasure in serving...it doesn't make the Dom's control over her any sweeter if he has to forcer her into it and make her do what she does because she is bullied and terrified into it... that would really be much less of a surrender in my eyes than one who is so completely surrendered it is actually her joy to submit. I am naturally submissive... but I can assure you I do not feel the joy of serving to a degree that I beg to be owned, owned, by every guy who is dominant.

talibahh -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/21/2006 5:30:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RavenMuse quote: ORIGINAL: talibahh i am still fairly new, so forgive me please if i am wrong, but where does it say it has to be about* either one or the other? Dom or sub?* This was in part sparked by past threads/discussions about the premis that D/s is all about the Dom which crop up on the boards from time to time. As I mentioned to Scooter, what I wrote above is more a counterbalance argument to that. Personaly I quite agree, whilst things are done 'My way', the relationship itself is about my girl every bit as it is about me. I was refering to that apparently contradictory part of the dynamicin in isolation which runs contrary to the more usualy percieved focus of things. Forgive me please RavenMuse, i meant no disrespect by my remarks... i have read many of Your posts and admire You as a Dom, as (i believe) i can see You are not a Dom who wouldnt care for His girl, i was merely stating how i see things, and not questioning You or Your remarks as such. i got and understood Your drift [;)] respectfully, tali [:)]

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125