|
Padriag -> RE: Dom/me or Master/Mistress? (6/1/2006 1:17:59 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thetammyjo
For me, Master/Mistress is very much like a job title or a role. I must have a slave or a submissive otherwise who am I master/mistress of?
That only works if you view it as a title, and even then the logic has a flaw. For example, I used to work as a carpenter and eventually became a master carpenter. I no longer work as a carpenter but I'm still a master carpenter. Why, because the skills, ability, etc. are still there, even if I'm not using them or working as a carpenter anymore. If being a Master or Mistress is a job, then surely there are skills and qualifications that go with it, do you stop having those just because you no longer have a slave?
I think the problem with this thinking comes from trying to qualify who is entitled to be called a Master or Mistress by whether or not they own a slave. To me that raises several questions. First, why qualify it in that way at all? Are those that do trying to indicate some degree of ability, achievement, etc. (and of course in some cases its just elitism)? If so, how does simply owning a slave do that? In this day and age with so many exploring this lifestyle, owning a slave is rather easy if you aren't picky and have no standards. So how is owning just any slave a qualifier of anything? If some want to qualify the title of Master with some sort of meaning, then why not associate it with skill and ability, much as I had to do to become a master carpenter. That is, if these are "titles" and to be a Master you have to earn it by presently owning a slave... then which of these is better; the "master" who collared the first slave he could fit into a collar, or the "dom" who patiently waits to find the right slave that meets his high standards? Seems to me this sort of logic leads to making them useless as titles, in which case why qualify it at all.
I'm not trying to start any arguments or attack anyone's point of view. As I said in my first post this all comes down to personal opinion (and clearly I have mine). However, I do hope it sparks some thought and challenges some points of view. I think there are problems with thinking of it as a title for a variety of reasons, just as I also believe anyone who tries to derive their authority as a dominant from a title is headed for trouble. Its one of the reasons I've come to view it as an orientation, a label for a type of style of relationship or a style of life (as I defined in my previous post), rather than any sort of title.
To answer your question, which may have been rhetorical, "Who am I a master of if I own no slave?" The same person I am first and foremost to begin with... myself. That's where my mastery begins and flows from. That well spring does not suddenly run dry because a relationship ends. A slave does not make me who I am, she doesn't complete me or finish me. I'm a complete person already, I don't need her, but I do want her. She doesn't fulfill my life, but she does contribute to it and make it more pleasant. She isn't the source of my happiness, but she is part of it. I'm a master, and I remain so whether I have a slave or not, or even whether or not I remain in this lifestyle. I remain a master, not because I own or have owned slaves, not because anyone else recognizes me as such (though certainly some do), but first and foremost because of the way I live... because I choose to master myself first of all.
|
|
|
|
