|
CaringandReal -> RE: Question regarding D/s dynamic (11/14/2009 8:00:47 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: digitalself
I'm a Dominant 35yr old Man who's only recently discovered the scene and begun trying to absorb It's vast yet sometimes convoluted and contradictary guidelines.
One such contradiction I've noticed browsing through other Dominants profiles pertains to the manner in which subs are treated for their service.
Much of the reading that I've done In books paints the D/s relationship as being symbiotic, where both compliment and validate each others role.
In this context the connection between service, reward and punishment is pretty clear.
But in many of the Dom profiles I've read here on this site I've noticed a big trend twords Doms demanding their subs/slaves unwavering service for absolutely nothing but the priveledge. How can/does a dynamic like that work in the LT? While I understand that it could be appealing to a sub who harbors a sense of personal worthlessness to begin with and seeks to have that validated by someone she regards as an authority, I still don't see how in general such a dynamic can work over any length of time. That willing desire to serve a master under such an agreement I can only imagine would eventually morph into anemosity, struggle, and eventually a seemingly persistent state of punishment for it.
I guess it is possible such relationships might work as the dominants in these ads state it, if the right personalities got together. In fact, I know it is possible, but these relationships are extremely rare. I get the feeling though, that a lot of the dominants who write those profiles are relatively inexperienced and are writing about fantasies that, that if they had experience, they would know are very hard to make into realities. Let's look at this purely from a control perspective, with no emotions (and especially no desire to make another person feel good in various ways) involved.
Having someone completely under your control requires a number of things, among those knowledge, monitoring, and feedback, precisely because that other person is usually not totally broken or will-less: if you don't pay attention, they will wander off, not serve you in the ways you wish, or even be actively and unplesantly rebellious. You learn about them, so you can learn how to control them. You monitor them at times so you can observe how they are responding to your control and determine where adjustments and fine-tuning need to be made. You provide feedback so that they will learn what is allowed, what isn't, where the bars, er, boundaries are, and what will happen to them when the respond in different ways (such as obediently vs. non-obediently). Knowedge, monitoring, and feedback mean many things to many people, of course, and that's where a lot of the more interesting discussions about bdsm occur: in the (sometimes contentious) exploration of these differences.
A totally defeated or broken person may not require this sort of... effort (? that's probably a misleading word, the control freaks I know find such things play, actually), but expecting any submissive who has not yet reached the point of total personality defeat, or rather, destruction of will, to respond like one who has, expecting that one will have to do nothing to get them to that stage, that a submissive will just dominate herself into absolute and abject obedience out of respect for someone who gives them nothing in return for this effort is pretty unrealistic, in my opinion, and makes me think I'm reading the words of a fantasizer. Intensely submissive women, the kind who would tend to be attracted to what the dominants you describe offer, tend to have a few traits in common, no matter how else they differ, and one of those traits is that they usually suck at sexual-emotional dominance (institutional dominance is another matter--if the control you have is bequeathed upon you and backed up by a powerful organized entity, such as the army or a large corporation, it's much easier to maintain a facade of dominance, however submissive you are inside)--and that includes self-dominance. What these profiles often demand from a future parter, however, is precisely that: a degree of self-domination, self-moderation, self-reward, and self-control (because he doesn't want to have anything to do with that messy work) that would drive a saint to despair.
So I think what frequently happens is that a very submissive women without a lot of experience is attracted strongly to this sort of profile, as it meshes with her uninformed fantasy of what an extreme bdsm relationship is or should be like. It doesn't occur to her that such a situation may require her to totally dominate herself, at all times, because she's hasn't had experience with actually trying to live this way. Another thing submissives tend to share in common, as it pretty much defines them as submissive, is that they have needs or desires for control, for being controlled by someone else. The strength of these needs vary from submissive to submissive, but they are stonger, on average, than a similar need in a vanilla person or a dominant. As you are probably aware, one of the best ways to control another person is to give them what they need (it's how you give them this, in fact, that pretty much defines you, as a dominant). Women who get involved with this type of dominant may not ever get their core need, for control met. So in most cases the pairings work for a while but with not even the need for being controlled being addressed, it's very hard to keep submitting--well, unless, of course, you don't really need that control to begin with. Some people just need the facade of being controlled, and they are very content. That sort might work well with such a dominant as long as they never "broke role" and asserted themselves.
The other sort who might work well with the "no effort" doms are the ones who are already defeated (those who are willing or desirous of letting their personalities be crushed still need someone to do the crushing, and often these sorts of doms unrealistically imagine they shouldn't have to be bothered, even with that). The already defeated type is interesting: not the sterotype you might imagine. I have met one or two such submissives in my life. Being unable to run away or fight against dominants who gave them nothing in return didn't make these submissives into very plesant people, interesting enough. The weren't meek, they weren't sweet-tempered, they weren't constantly and happily thinking of ways to please their dominants, they often hated them, in fact, although they couldn't display that. One I knew was one of the most foul-mouthed, ill-tempered, irrational shrews that I had ever met--to anybody except her captors, of course. But there was no question that she was completely broken. It's just... when you break inside the pieces aren't always pretty ones.
I used to ask my former master why he didn't break me in this way, it was very obvious to me that he could as I was quite dependent upon him emotionally. He'd say, "Because I love you," and then he'd add, "plus, you wouldn't be any fun that way."
One other thing about these sorts of profiles. This is subjective not based on fact or direct experience, but perhaps my past experiences have informed my opinion: I often get the feeling that the men who write these ads are very angry at women and trying to get back at them, that they want this sort of relationship not because they are particularly dominant, but because they want to act out feelings of revenge and punishment. Perhaps a few women have screwed with them over the years, broken their hearts, and now they're determined not to ever feel anything for a female ever again, except coldness and demands and a desire to punish or coldly use without emotion. That's primarily why I shy away from them. The extremity attracts me, extremes always do, but I don't feel particularly submissive around a constantly angry man. And I do want to feel my submission. :)
|
|
|
|
