|
StrangerThan -> RE: Refusing to meet (11/9/2008 5:55:14 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: antipode
Most often married or in a relationship.
All the sympathetic bs aside, antipode is probably right on the money. I don't get the composed at a distance, but dysfunctional in rl aspect. I'm not sure I'd want anyone teaching me anything they couldn't do themselves.
Training is one of those aspects of this lifestyle that I mostly just don't get anyway. I do when you're being trained by the one you're with. I don't when someone is simply "training you." What will you learn that will be of value to someone you actually end up with? A whole lot of shit that's important to someone else mostly. What makes D/s, BDSM (use any acronym you want) what it is, is that it is subjective to those people with whom you choose to be involved - and sometimes intensely subjective. That means Master Derrick or Dom Joe can't teach you what's important to me, what I want, what I will have, what my submissive needs to do to please me. Only I can.
The idea of a passing trainer is an eye-roller for me. It's more of an excuse to get involved without committment but whitewashing it as something else when it comes to interaction between Dominants and submissives. I do get mentoring relationships when they're what they should be. I do get that everyone has different levels of experience and have no problem asking another how to do something. But these kinds of "let Me train you" lines bring up the immediate question in my mind of who are they training you for? Not me. Not the next person you'll meet. Not any relationship thereafter. They're training you to their expectations, needs and wants and it's a crap shoot as to whether any of those will have much value to anyone thereafter.
|
|
|
|
