Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly)

Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (Full Version)

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

Message

marieToo -> Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (8/29/2006 12:24:02 AM)
I recently spoke to someone who has this sort of Master slave heirarchy household. I found it interesting and talked to him about the details of it. This is not someone who posts here and this is not an attempt to talk behind anyones back. This is me wanting input from anyone who understands and or lives in this fashion. This was similar to the military having rankings.....Firstly, there is the Master...head of ALL of them....then there was this slave that he refered to as his "Senior slave"....then there was his next slave who he refered to as his "slut slave". Now, the senior slave is submissive to the Master but dominant to the slut slave. And above this, they were seeking a "pet slave" for the slut slave. The slut slave would be dominant in the household ONLY to the pet slave and the pet slave would be submissive to all of them. the order was Master---Senior slave---Slut slave---and eventual pet slave. Now, would the slut slave who is sub to Master and sub to senior slave but dominant to the pet slave be a switch??? Im not judging switches...thats all fine with me, but this slut slave claims to be a slave to her Master, like its all about him, his pleasure etc, yet she desires to dominante a pet slave lower on the totum pole. I mean is a slave not simply a slave? Or can a slave be a slave to one party, and yet be a dominant to another? Personally I have tried being owned by a dominant couple who were equals to each other, and I couldnt tolerate it because I simply cannot submit to females. (But even this isnt the same as the heirarchy thing) I could even submit to a poly Master, if all his slaves were equal to one another, but that to me is different than the heirarchy thing as well. I could even submit to another person on my Masters orders, but to live this way as a rule where there is this heirarchy of power in the household seems like everyone in the house is basically switches, except for the Master. I would imagine this would cause a ton of confusion and continuously conflicting mindsets that would have to be switched at the drop of a dime. I would appreciate and welcome any insight. marie.

Jasmyn -> RE: Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (8/29/2006 1:09:35 AM)
Imagine a Victorian home ... you had the butler, cook, male & female servents, etc ... in charge of their various areas for the smooth running of the home ... same with the miliarty and it's various ranks ... they don't aspire to equality in rank .. equal appreciation one would hope...but works on a type of delegation ... from one to another ... and those lower in 'rank' are bound by the orders of those above them ... and their Master/Mistress being the ultimate authority ... I don't think it's about switching at all.

marieToo -> RE: Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (8/29/2006 1:22:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jasmyn Imagine a Victorian home ... you had the butler, cook, male & female servents, etc ... in charge of their various areas for the smooth running of the home ... same with the miliarty and it's various ranks ... they don't aspire to equality in rank .. equal appreciation one would hope...but works on a type of delegation ... from one to another ... and those lower in 'rank' are bound by the orders of those above them ... and their Master/Mistress being the ultimate authority ... I don't think it's about switching at all. Ya know....what you said brings to mind something else about this family. If the slut slave screwed up, the senior slave (who is above the slut slave) would be held responsible for it. So, yes I guess it IS very military-like. I guess it isnt about switching, but I put myself in those shoes and imagine being somewhere on this heirarchy being submissive in nature, I cant imagine having control over someone else. I would think I would need a streak of dominance in myself in order to be successful at it. But on the other hand, if I were able to keep my head in a place where I was dominating a 'lower' slave because it was an order from my Master, maybe that would put a different spin on it. I dont know. I just find it very interesting. Thanks for the input, Jasmyn. :)

Jasmyn -> RE: Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (8/29/2006 1:31:24 AM)
quote: But on the other hand, if I were able to keep my head in a place where I was dominating a 'lower' slave because it was an order from my Master, maybe that would put a different spin on it. It does. It gives you permission.

HisChatelaine -> RE: Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (8/29/2006 3:32:34 AM)
Personally, I could not imagine a household, or a busines, or an army - any group of people with a common goal, properly functioning in any other way.

twicehappy -> RE: Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (8/29/2006 3:54:31 AM)
Sounds like the Alpha system to me, you do see it in some Gorean households as well. You know; first slave, second slave etc.... There is no way i could do this one. Imagine answering to everyone in the house or having to answer for somebody else's mistakes. It works for the military i'm sure but i would never join the army either. I still get pissed at sub/slaves that were here prior to me and failed to put things back where they belonged or stored things in their proper place. When I go looking for a tool(we are restoring an old Victorian home)that belonged in a certain box that has not been needed for a year only to discover after 6 hours of searching that said previous subbies just stuffed in a closet I could beat them myself. So there is no way I would want to be responsible for somebody else. This system is also probably psychologically and emotionally hard on the slaves further down in the hierarchy. Whether or not they were valued less would likely be a question in their minds. In our house all subs/slaves are equal, we have (in the past and will again if we find another) separate duties but all such duties are perceived as having equal value.

Jasmyn -> RE: Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (8/29/2006 4:08:08 AM)
twice some people are happy to be in that place quote: they were valued less would likely be a question in their minds Why do you think this would be a question in their minds?

twicehappy -> RE: Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (8/29/2006 4:21:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jasmyn twice some people are happy to be in that place quote: they were valued less would likely be a question in their minds Why do you think this would be a question in their minds? I never said they were not, i said i would not be. I am an extremely dominant person in my life(i am 110% biker) the only ones i submit to are my owners. And having seen so many who even in an equal relationship often having feelings of being loved or cared for less i can see this being an issue for some. Not all but some. I have always been poly, for 18 years basically i was the( for lack of a better term )the primary partner and we dealt quite a bit with feeling of being less valued or loved by other subs/slaves in the house even though Master was very careful to treat all to equal affection and time.

Slipstreme -> RE: Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (8/29/2006 5:41:22 AM)
Coming from a poly family with a Top-Down hierarchy, I can safely say, we're all switchy here in some fashion (Hell, my slave is not going to get out of learning to be sadistic for my pleasure). My boys are Switches. It is me, Chris, Ed then z, the family slave.

twicehappy -> RE: Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (8/29/2006 5:54:50 AM)
As long as it works you are blessed. I think the trick is to communicate and love. For us however none of the other females were anything but sub so that really would not have been a option.

crouchingtigress -> RE: Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (8/29/2006 6:44:14 AM)
hi marie, you know it really is not that confusing when you are living it....especialy if you are a follow your gut sort of person, because my Dominance and submission are very intuitive, and come form the way i respond to the energy around me....if all the people involve have clear lines of communication and clearly defined rolls with intimately defined duties and expectations, it is a system that i find works better then the all slaves are equal model, simply because in that model often times you see an undercurrent of jealousy and competition for the doms attention.

twicehappy -> RE: Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (8/29/2006 7:04:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crouchingtigress in that model often times you see an undercurrent of jealousy and competition for the doms attention. True but in my previous collar if there was jealousy we tried to root it out, if the person involved proved to be incapable of leaving jealousy behind at that point we had no choice but to remove them from the group. In my current collar there is no jealousy nor do i think Scooter or Jewel would accept one in their collar who displayed any type of jealousy, it is simply a useless emotion. My sig line says it all; the human heart if allowed can love many.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (8/29/2006 7:17:01 AM)
FR: Operating under anothers authority is operating under anothers authority. It's not switching to take the responsibilities that your owner has given you to take. Instead of being a boss at a job, or over kids, or over house workers...you just happen to be a boss over people you're in a personal relationship with. You still don't have the ULTIMATE authority over them, you've just been delegated duties that you must fulfill. I've come to the point that "primary/secondary" "alpha/beta" "who's on first" sort of relationships are just too confining for me and limiting for what I do. I know for many that it provides them the structure and balance and permanancy that they desire, but I prefer to let things flow and just be what they are.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (8/29/2006 7:18:54 AM)
It is an interesting scenario marie. I've never lived in such a household though in looking back, I can almost see where my childhood family was sort of like that in terms of structure: Dad...then Mom...then Me...then my younger brother. Having done a stint in the 82nd, I can definitely tell you that this structure works very well in terms of efficiency. I would think for it to work...for me now on a personal level...I would have to structure it at least somewhat like the military and somewhat like my early years; a definite head of the household (Me as the dominant) and others beneath me (submissives) with room for discussion and negotiation (something not allowed in the military to any great extent and, if truth be known...~s~...not in my early home either) at an adult level. I will admit I find it fascinating but also admit that the idea of me entering into that now is unlikely. I find so many ways of life fascinating but I also know that, while I have...hopefully...a great many years left, I am most likely looking at a shorter walk ahead of me then the one behind me and choices made are much more important now.

LotusSong -> RE: Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (8/29/2006 7:24:48 AM)
If someone needs or has to be given permission to dominate another.. that's just a farce to me.

crouchingtigress -> RE: Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (8/29/2006 8:04:19 AM)
aloha twice, i think it is a good idea to boot some one out if several approaches have been tried and they cant get past their jealousy, this is a pretty evolved thing we do and we all have to come to it from a place of emotional maturity, fearless self assessment, and with the capacity to let go and strip down any preconceived ideas and beliefs. more then once i have had to release a boy because the fantasy does not measure up to the reality of actually sharing... the worst in fighting i have ever seen was submissive females of equal ranks, because there was a subtle undercurrent that was palpable, it lasted for over a year, the Dom was a very skilled dom and loved them both, and had tried many approaches to get the harmony to work...but one day he tried something totally new. he beat them soundly and for many excruciating hours, way past pain, he is a consummate sadist the one girl is a huge pain slut, so he went above and beyond anything he/she had ever gone, i mean severe. anyway, to my total surprise it worked and they live a harmonious life now....go figure

thetammyjo -> RE: Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (8/29/2006 8:20:07 AM)
Of course slaves can have slaves -- even in historical slavery this was possible and most households, companies, and estates could not have functioned if slaves did not have the ability to have authority over other slaves. Heck in the Roman world slaves could even buy other slaves and sometimes did -- their slave would then do the most icky parts of their jobs and let them do the more "important parts" of their work. For example, a personal secretary of a high ranking/wealth person might buy a slave to keep their own clothes clean and make the ink they use so that the personal secretary can focus on writing and filing things for the master as well as looking presentable without spend the energy and time on the mundane necessities of getting supplies and clothes ready. Whether or not someone is a switch is a twofold question: what do you (the observer believe) and what do they believe. I personally wouldn't call someone a switch (or anything else) unless that is how he defined himself.

twicehappy -> RE: Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (8/29/2006 8:33:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crouchingtigress he beat them soundly and for many excruciating hours, way past pain, he is a consummate sadist the one girl is a huge pain slut, so he went above and beyond anything he/she had ever gone, i mean severe. anyway, to my total surprise it worked and they live a harmonious life now....go figure ROFLMAO......... It does not surprise me at all. I knew a dom in a similiar situation who ordered the two out in the yard naked to fight, the winner to get the prize she had been fighting for all this time. The prize? Lol, she got strung up and beaten until the losers arm was tired. Instant harmony......

Tanos -> RE: Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (8/29/2006 8:46:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo This was similar to the military having rankings.....Firstly, there is the Master...head of ALL of them....then there was this slave that he refered to as his "Senior slave"....then there was his next slave who he refered to as his "slut slave". Now, the senior slave is submissive to the Master but dominant to the slut slave. And above this, they were seeking a "pet slave" for the slut slave. The slut slave would be dominant in the household ONLY to the pet slave and the pet slave would be submissive to all of them. the order was Master---Senior slave---Slut slave---and eventual pet slave. Now, would the slut slave who is sub to Master and sub to senior slave but dominant to the pet slave be a switch??? Im not judging switches...thats all fine with me, but this slut slave claims to be a slave to her Master, like its all about him, his pleasure etc, yet she desires to dominante a pet slave lower on the totum pole. I mean is a slave not simply a slave? Or can a slave be a slave to one party, and yet be a dominant to another? In my view, the military analogy is very useful, and goes further than just higher ranks being senior to junior ranks. Most militaries maintain a distinction between Comissioned Officers, who may exercise command, and Other Ranks, who may lead their juniors but not command. There was a similar difference in a traditional household, between members of the family and their guests, and the servants. The mos senior servant, the butler or steward, gave orders to the other servants, but he did not take "policy decisions" - he merely turned the wishes of the head of the household into instructions for the junior servants. In D/s, this distinction translates into the difference between dominants and submissives, and in poly D/s households, it's visible in terms of who gets to make arbitrary choices for their own pleasure about the time and effort of submissives who are junior to them: dominants do, people who are solely submissive in the houshold don't. Regards, Tanos

Homestead -> RE: Heirarchy (Hope I spelled that correctly) (8/29/2006 8:54:16 AM)
Yes Tanos. The worst D/s poly trainwrecks I have seen happen were when the alpha slave was given too much arbitrary discretion. That's when insecurity and jealousy can really turn ugly. So it is very much up to the head of house to make things crystal clear to all under him-that the real alpha will always be that same head of house-never a slave.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375