Mastery... active or passive?

Mastery... active or passive? (Full Version)

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

Message

puella -> Mastery... active or passive? (7/27/2006 3:34:04 AM)
What does it mean to you (Dom or sub input totally welcome) to master another person... to be a Master? Is it active? Is it something you do.. something you set out to take and create in a woman whom you have chosen? Or is it passive... something you expect to be acknowledged and understood within the relationship from the inception and once that is not obeyed, is a total deal breaker for the relationship? This is sort of a part two to my previous question, as so many of the responses were, in effect: I do not threaten, I train and create what I want in my slave...etc. Thanks!

SusanofO -> RE: Mastery... active or passive? (7/27/2006 3:52:03 AM)
I think someone I'd want as a Master would already sort of exude an "air of Dominance" in being: Self-assured and protective of me, and that would in turn bring out my submisiveness more, and me wanting to anticipate their needs, and an aching to please them. So in that sense, I guess I'd think of Mastery as "passive". But - from what I've heard and read (and once had), being a good (or a great) Dominant is sometimes no piece of cake, and takes dedication to the relationship (as does being a good or great submissive). So - I'd hope they'd want to be invested enough in a relationship to be able to think it's important to communicate not only their own desires, but to hear me when I try to communicate my "needs" as well, and also just to make sure our relationship was living up to what He (and I) wanted. To me, ongoing communication is a big part of "active Mastery." - Susan

Level -> RE: Mastery... active or passive? (7/27/2006 3:53:02 AM)
Mastery involves mastering myself; this translates into being able to master another in the way I want. To master them is a process of taking their will and desires and making them aimed at pleasing and obeying me.

RavenMuse -> RE: Mastery... active or passive? (7/27/2006 3:58:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: puella What does it mean to you (Dom or sub input totally welcome) to master another person... to be a Master? Is it active? Is it something you do.. something you set out to take and create in a woman whom you have chosen? Or is it passive... something you expect to be acknowledged and understood within the relationship from the inception and once that is not obeyed, is a total deal breaker for the relationship? Both The underlaying dynamic is a constant, it comes from who she is, who I am and the way we relate. She submits when she trusts in who I am and how I excersise my responsibility and control within a relationship, from there she obays. If for some reason she stops wanting to obay, the submission is lost, that is the end of the relationship. I don't DO vanilla. Training, dealing with problems, helping her become a better person and/or better at pleasing ME are active things, not passive those are the times when I am required to act on my part of the relationship, step upto the plate. After saying that, whilst it is active and sometimes not easy, it isn't a chore, it is simply how I work, how I function, who I am.

mstrjx -> RE: Mastery... active or passive? (7/27/2006 3:59:16 AM)
I think when people meet, for instance through this medium (CollarMe), they may have the 'intent' on creating a Master/slave dynamic, but that doesn't necessarily make theirs a M/s relationship until both parties confirm that there is a relationship that is worth starting. In my case this would be sometime after a first meeting, discussion, physical interaction. For others it could be prior to that, but at any rate there has to have an agreement that the dynamic has started. In the case of a slave, he/she chooses (perhaps as his/her last active 'choice' in that relationship) whom will be the master of that person. From the side of the Master, it is again an active step. I suppose one can be a Master of their environment, empty though it might be, but their life is so much more fulfilling if they have a slave. But it has to be known that each Master has their tastes and preferences, as do each slave's (similar though they might be). Assuming a not-100%-perfect alignment of tastes, then there would have to be some sort of 'training' in the Master's ways/desires/tastes. Without that 'struggle', great or small it might end up, 'mastering' that particular slave would not be much of a conquest. (Gee, I really don't want to get flamed on my choice of words. I'm really going for a concept.) So, it is decided that a relationship is worth starting. The participants have chosen each other. To keep that relationship alive, it is really no different than any other relationship. There will be subtle changes in the individuals. The relationship might require work to adjust to these changes. And because it is a BDSM relationship, both parties realize the critical nature of communication all the way through. (We do understand that communication is vital in our affairs, right, group?) Any sort of deal-breaker that dissolves the union would probably of a sort that would occur in any sort of relationship. The individual changes are so dynamic that the relationship cannot keep up and dissolves, trust is broken, communication is lost. But to say that one would enter into a 'relationship' with another person and in the first instance of disobedience declare the slave unworthy or the relationship a bust is extremely short-sighted. In rereading this I apologize for the highly academic tone. It's possible I could have done the whole thing with one-syllable words, but it might have turned out silly. Jeff

mellian -> RE: Mastery... active or passive? (7/27/2006 4:03:02 AM)
They would a great Mistress/Master if they could do so without me actively letting them doing so. I mean, if I give my all to a Domme and yet do not overwhelming master me, then it is pointless, and empty. No point wasting my time if I am forced to lead from below all the time. I hope I made sense. -mellian

wandering4u -> RE: Mastery... active or passive? (7/27/2006 4:10:06 AM)
In all relationships there is a give and take as the relationship develops. It is both an active and a passive relationship as all are. But I agree that one of the keys is communication and that again should be both active and passive. Sometimes trying for an "air of Dominance" has a negative impact on the developing relationship since there initally may be different interpretations as to what that is.

fyreredsub -> RE: Mastery... active or passive? (7/27/2006 4:20:11 AM)
i think if a Master is or becomes passive it creates unstability in a new slave that is being trained.. firmess and guidance (as well as kudos)are needed while one is learning. i know for myself i'll run the show(or try to) with a passive Master. for some reason i equate passive with not being commanding of character i'll explore to master another person at a later time...i've only expereienced breifly and when he became passive---well pooofffffffffff. and on the other end of the spectrum i made a lousy mistress but a great top...if that makes sense.

MsIncognito -> RE: Mastery... active or passive? (7/27/2006 4:34:48 AM)
IMO 'passive mastery/domination' is an oxymoron. Regardless of whether one's style leans towards being overt or subtle I still think it requires action on a daily basis. Someone has to lead and direct and I fail to see how that can be passive no matter what style is used.

MzMinx -> RE: Mastery... active or passive? (7/27/2006 5:03:34 AM)
for me its both active and passive ..... its internal and external to be who I am takes internal actions and growth and external actions smiles .... I actively seek control from those who have chosen to submit to me .... but I know that just who I am engenders part of their desire ...evokes reactions from them ..... its both who I am and what I do that creates the complete picture for them also the same can be said in reverse ....sometimes just seeing one of my boys makes me want to drag them to their knees ..... there presence evokes a desire to feel a more primal energy ..... and some times its their actions that can trigger a purrring pleasurable response.... yin and yang .... its an energy exchange smiles ... it flows between the two (or more) .. and i think the more complex .. the more balanced .. the more delightful I may lead, and he follow, but I am leading him and I smiles ... we are both active participants so I would never expect to be as simple as being only one or the other .... I dont expect anything to be a given ... but smiles I do believe we both need to put the energy in .... but I do expect that we both respect what the other is ....... that although there is always a level of proveing/building/earning of trust ..... that the basis is a power exchange ,,,, and that it is one where I am the dominant and he the submissive .... smiles

Focus50 -> RE: Mastery... active or passive? (7/27/2006 5:09:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: puella What does it mean to you (Dom or sub input totally welcome) to master another person... to be a Master? Is it active? Is it something you do.. something you set out to take and create in a woman whom you have chosen? Or is it passive... something you expect to be acknowledged and understood within the relationship from the inception and once that is not obeyed, is a total deal breaker for the relationship? This is sort of a part two to my previous question, as so many of the responses were, in effect: I do not threaten, I train and create what I want in my slave...etc. By your definitions, I'd hafta say "active".... The "passive" definition isn't mastering, it's enjoying the fruits of submission. Any vanilla could meet that criteria and most fem/subs get 10 emails a day from them.... To me, you can't define a Master in a singular sense, ie without acknowledging the presence of his slave. This is because M/s is a dynamic, where Dom and sub feed off each other's power, and your "passive" master isn't contributing his supposed power to that dynamic. Mastering isn't something I set out to "take and create in a woman whom you (I) have chosen", she hasta be an equally willing and consenting submissive because I want/need the power only a sub can contribute towards an M/s dynamic - vanillas need NOT apply. To be master of another person is not necessarily something I've sat down and rationalised beyond it being a life's need and driving force within me.... Rather than justify my needs to nosey nillas, I content myself with seeking out a compatible sub/slave with a complimenting need. I might well ask you what it means to be female or submissive or brunette etc.... We seek out what we need. Focus.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Mastery... active or passive? (7/27/2006 7:04:53 AM)
I would have to say Master does both. To be in tune with me - and to teach and guide according who I am and how my mind works, is to be actively involved. I could not learn all of Master's idiosyncracies, and how best to please him, if he did not interact with me and tell me/demonstrate exactly what works best with him Had he not set me on a path of successes for him - giving me just the right amount of challenge to have to work, yet not fail - I would not have built up the confidence that needed building. A long time ago he said "It is a delicate balance to run you" and I could not dispute that. I wanted to submit deeply, yet I questioned so much because of trust/insecurity reasons. He knew just how far to take me (emotionally as well as physically) to create what he wanted in me. This is not to say there aren't times he sits back and enjoys the fruits of his labor. He has taught me to be active in my submission, which means I know what he likes and have carte blanche to do such things at the appropriate times. For example, I was just with him at a conference. When he returned at the end of very long days, he would flop down on the bed and I would undress and massage him. When he was relaxed, dinner would be ready and waiting, and I would serve it to him. Then he would sit at his desk and work and I would lay at his feet massaging them further, or providing a foot rest with my body. He could be considered "passive" in that regard, enjoying what I was providing but not putting forth energy to do so. The passivity you mentioned - whereby the slave acknowledges the need to submit and obey - is, in my opinion, a function of M/s and not necessarily passivity on the Master's part. In my case, I submit and obey and that allows me to remain his slave. If I do not, I am no longer his slave. Since Master wants a slave, my lack of submission and obedience would end our dynamic and the relationship would change to a vanilla friendship - which neither of us prefer. I am his slave, and need to be so. It is my need and desire to submit to him - not threaths - which keeps me doing so. It is the way he manages me which fosters that need and desire within me.

QuietDom -> RE: Mastery... active or passive? (7/27/2006 8:42:19 AM)
I'm going to weigh in on the side of 'passive' here. I think Yul Brynner expressed it best. He played King Mongkut of Siam in productions of 'The King and I' for decades. When he started his long-standing relationship with the role, method acting was the rage among actors -- a technique that draws your performance from similar experiences of your own. Obviously, this is a difficulty when you play something (like a king) that doesn't parallel your own experiences very well. Given this, a reporter once asked him "How do you play a king?" His response? The secret to playing a king is not to act like a king. It's that everyone around you acts like you're a king. (my paraphrase)

thetammyjo -> RE: Mastery... active or passive? (7/27/2006 8:55:49 AM)
I think its the same as mastering any field -- you have to work at it and learn about it, the "it" in this cause would be the slave/submissive. However part of learning about it is learning how to utilize it well. That can be active or passive depending on the situation. If I'm do SM with Fox then I'm very active, if he is cooking dinner for the family I'm passive in that situation (something I had to learn to let go of so I could enjoy this service of his).

Sab -> RE: Mastery... active or passive? (7/27/2006 10:18:08 AM)
I am not a Master and she is not a slave, I am Dominant she is submissive - but that opens up the whole debate once more, 'Is a submissive a trainee slave? Is a Dominant a trainee Master?' I personally think neither - but I have always felt that way. I am still of the opinion that mastery and slavery is either of a Sado-masachistc genre or a neo one. How the dynamic works for all is, again in my opinion, unique to each relationship as a whole.

thetammyjo -> RE: Mastery... active or passive? (7/27/2006 10:21:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sab I am not a Master and she is not a slave, I am Dominant she is submissive - but that opens up the whole debate once more, 'Is a submissive a trainee slave? Is a Dominant a trainee Master?' I personally think neither - but I have always felt that way. I am still of the opinion that mastery and slavery is either of a Sado-masachistc genre or a neo one. How the dynamic works for all is, again in my opinion, unique to each relationship as a whole. I'll answer your questions from my definitions only. No, a submissive is not a trainee slave nor is a dominant a trainee master. Submissive and Dominant are personality types or relationship roles. I think that slave and owner/master is a relationship role that one can chose. I don't judge either as better, harder, or anything else more than the other. They are just different.

Tamerofwild1s -> RE: Mastery... active or passive? (7/27/2006 11:58:31 AM)
I gotta say that many a Master is active in the "courting portion" of the relationship . now for me I lean towards active thru the training and on into the relationship . I find a passive mastery leads to stagnate waters . and those are never good the relation will soon die if you start a dynamic with a slave in an active manner it should remain by all means active on thru it

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Mastery... active or passive? (7/27/2006 12:23:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RavenMuse Both The underlaying dynamic is a constant, it comes from who she is, who I am and the way we relate. She submits when she trusts in who I am and how I excersise my responsibility and control within a relationship, from there she obays. If for some reason she stops wanting to obay, the submission is lost, that is the end of the relationship. I don't DO vanilla. Training, dealing with problems, helping her become a better person and/or better at pleasing ME are active things, not passive those are the times when I am required to act on my part of the relationship, step upto the plate. After saying that, whilst it is active and sometimes not easy, it isn't a chore, it is simply how I work, how I function, who I am. Ditto. Relationships take active participation from all involved. But you should also be able to relax and simply be and allow yourselves to depend on eachother at certain times for certain things as well.

puella -> RE: Mastery... active or passive? (7/27/2006 12:52:21 PM)
Hello, QuietDom... I am just going to prod you a bit because I couldn't really grasp what your theory in a complete way. [;)] Acting is very different than life, I know this as I am a performing artist (or was). Everything is finite, everything is laid out, from the beginning to the end, there are no surprises (unless one of the players messes up or something) and there are no struggles out side of the framework of the plot (the beginning, development and end of which you already know). You can afford to be a passive king in a production of the King and I as you are not really the King of Siam... you do not have to manage a country, a government, a house hold and a million wives, dealing with all problems with nothing more taxing than a blasé '"etcetera etcetera etcetera!" But what do you do with real problems, real failures and consequences.. when a wave of the hand and an 'etcetera' here and there will not only not move your life/working plot along, but in many cases can cause a pretty high likelihood of greater damage down the road from not being actively fixed? Or are you saying that as a slave, it is that persons job to take care of the problems, as the king should not be bothered by anything but pleasure... because, believe me, you would not be alone in that estimation.... and which of course will lead me to further probing of your thoughts on that process later on. hehe Thanks!

QuietDom -> RE: Mastery... active or passive? (8/24/2006 2:10:48 PM)
Sometimes, I look back at one of my old posts, discover that someone responded to it, and that I would really like to refute whatever idiocy was flung at me. But these posts tend to be on threads that have died, and deserved to die, and should not be resurrected for the sake of my vanity. This thread, I think, is safe to resurrect. So, puella, my long-delayed response. I agree that the real King Mongkut would have had responsibilities that Yul Brynner did not. But that's a question of necessities, rather than the essence of Kinginess. If King Mongkut just sat on his throne and concerned himself with nothing while Siam sank into ruin, he would still be a king. Not a good king, of course, but no a less a king. If, however, all his subjects revolted against him, there's good grounds for saying that he's no longer a king. It's the same for a Master. As long as there's a slave who calls him Master, then he is one, whether he's particularly good, bad, or indifferent at it. It's part of the consensuality we prize: he's a Master by (passively) receiving submission and service, rather than by (actively) compelling obedience. Now, a Master might want to practice his skills, he might want to ensure that the relationship retains a solid footing, he might want to ensure that the slave's needs are addressed; there's any number of good and useful things that he'd be well-advised to do. But until his slave takes off that collar and walks away, he's a Master even if he does none of them. Because he is being a Master, not doing Mastery. Hope that makes my views clear.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125