RE: Trust test.

RE: Trust test. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

MercTech -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 6:37:19 AM)
Just to be devil's advocate.... Could it have been a "is this person a doormat" test? A braincell firing outside the box, Stefan

AquaticSub -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 6:45:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Just to be devil's advocate.... Could it have been a "is this person a doormat" test? A braincell firing outside the box, Stefan If that were the case, then why did she fail by refusing?

MstrssPassion -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 6:52:53 AM)
the point is that this person would use the premise of an illegal act as any measure & fail a person based on their unwillingness to commit a crime as everyone else has recognized.... quote: i heard a Dom talk about a trust test he gave a prospective slave prospective slave.... in other words potential. This slaves was not owned, she had not consented to his rules or dynamic... she was in that period where she was most likely trying to make a good impression on him (do no wrong) because she was just getting to know him & he just getting to know her. For this dumb-ass to toss in lose/lose scenario such as this, at this point in a "budding" relationship is nothing more than setting someone up for failure. I can only imagine that these slaves have suffered quite a bit of anguish as the result of him setting them up to fail. You don't test someone who doesn't know you by asking them to do something illegal... I don't care how much you are trying to prove a point that you will not allow any harm to befall them. Mindfucks are great but you really need to establish some solid trust before you go fucking around with someone mind.

MrDiscipline44 -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 7:01:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub If that were the case, then why did she fail by refusing? She failed because she wasn't a doormat.. Maybe she said she was a "no-limits" sub/slave and when presented with the scenario, proved hersalf a liar. Who knows.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 7:33:06 AM)
Living life is the only valid "test". At any given moment both a dom and a sub, Master and slave, are "tested". The test is one of endurance. If its "easy" you pass. If you have to concentrate or 'act', study or 'work', employ a 'cheat sheet' or solicit 'what do I do?' advise from friends or websites, need a 'vacation' or 'time out'; "failure" may be just one incident away. This is a ploy by a 'dom' lacking confidence in himself. The test proved his insecurity. It's a fine example of invalidation. Congrats to the sub for her integrity. Remember "tests" and limits are bilateral. Once abdicating responsibility a Master abdicates his authority.

Kinkypupper -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 7:50:05 AM)
Foolish test, would prove only that the "dom person" probably has no clue about who or what they really wanted or who indeed they were.

JSin -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 9:06:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subinmi At a dinner i attended today i heard a Dom talk about a trust test he gave a prospective slave. They were in a store and he gave her an item and told her to walk out the door with it. The prospective slave refused saying she would be arrested. He said she failed the test. i'm a newbie and believe i may be more slave than sub but i would never commit myself to someone who asked me to do something illegal. Whether or not he would have stopped her at the door is immaterial. Does this kind of "test" happen often? Was it a bad test or just a bad Dom? I would say both bad test and bad Dom... well at minimum marginal dom.. I personally have no use for tests .. I trust her or I do not... More important to me is wether she trusts me. If she does I know she will let me take her to places that she would never go... To pull Bullshit power trips masked as tests undermine that trust and are antithetical to my goals... I would really question the role they play... Or maybe I just don't understand. JSin

SimplyMichael -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 9:30:42 AM)
Trust is simple. It comes when someone's words match their actions. Someone who says they are never late always seems to be late. Someone who says they always open doors seems to "forget" a lot. Someone who says you are the most important woman in their life and yet always seems to use "your" time to help other women. When actions match deeds that builds trust, when they don't it undermines it. Telling someone you just met to undergo a test is BS on so many levels. Something flirty like asking them to close their eyes is one thing, asking them to steal is idiotic.

ExtremeOwnerIL -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 9:34:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hawkwolf7 The trust of the submissive or slave is EARNED by the Dominant or Master. In that context, testing their trust simply makes no sense. Outside of context of the OP's story, I would comment that trust is earned by both on either side. If I am going to put my energy and dominance to someone in other than a "topping" session, I'm going to have to trust that person - just as they would have to trust me. Trust is a two way street in this town.

SirDominic -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 10:48:53 AM)
For what it is worth, if she refused as she did, I would have told her she passed the test! But it really is a childish, manipulative game not worthy of any Dom who is secure in themselves. Mostly Doms who constantly need to test their sub/slave are the ones who are very insecure, or are control freaks (or both). I knew a Dom once who contantly tested his slave. He wanted/needed proof that she was doing what he wanted when she was away from him. He would set up tests where he had a way to verify whether she complied or not. To him, trust was a test that had to be constantly retested. He was one of the worst control freaks I have ever met. It is why I want a sub/slave who has a mind of her own. How much more delicious to have someone with a brain of her own submit, than a bimbo who blindly submits unconditionally. Namaste, Sir Dominic

OsideGirl -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 10:58:58 AM)
One thought came to my mind....."He's looking for a new sub? What a surprise."

SirDominic -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 11:04:54 AM)
No, Bobbi, that was not it at all. He really had this almost psychotic need to be in control. He felt he succeeded as a Master when he found someone who would submit to his absurd demands. And, he did find such a woman, by the way. Namaste, Sir Dominic

AquaticSub -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 11:16:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrDiscipline44 quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub If that were the case, then why did she fail by refusing? She failed because she wasn't a doormat.. Maybe she said she was a "no-limits" sub/slave and when presented with the scenario, proved hersalf a liar. Who knows. I think the "is she a doormat" test is trying to make sure they aren't doormats - otherwise it wouldn't be refered to as a "doormat" test but a "good slave" test.

AquaticSub -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 11:18:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirDominic I knew a Dom once who contantly tested his slave. He wanted/needed proof that she was doing what he wanted when she was away from him. He would set up tests where he had a way to verify whether she complied or not. To him, trust was a test that had to be constantly retested. He was one of the worst control freaks I have ever met. That reminds me of a guy in high school who always testing his girlfriend. He made fake e-mail accounts and sent her love notes as though he was another man who had been having sex with her. Stuff like "Thursday was great, did you have fun too?" To this day I don't know what exactly this test was supposed to prove because if she had been cheating, wouldn't she wonder why the letters were coming from a new e-mail address and unsigned?

MadRabbit -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 12:11:01 PM)
All I see is someone proving they dont deserve to have authority.

softness -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 12:44:12 PM)
oy oy oy ... bets the phrase "if you were a true submissive ..." was never far from his lips reminds me of a discussion from another site ... a Master hands his slave a gun .. orders her to cock it .. put it to her temple and pull the trigger .. as a test of trust the defense put forward was that the gun was not only empty but also the safety welded down and so the girl was in no phsyical danger ... but certainly knows what i would have done with that "harmless" lump of metal and it would not have ended with a pretty looking Master

OsideGirl -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 1:04:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirDominic No, Bobbi, that was not it at all. Sorry, Dominic. I was being sarcastic which didn't come across. My bad.

windchymes -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 1:11:33 PM)
I just wonder what he would have done if she HAD walked out the door with the item, and the alarm went off, security surrounded her, she was hauled off to to the office, and charges were filed for shoplifting, which then gave her a police record. Wouldn't that make him so proud of his little criminal slave?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 1:13:34 PM)
quote: if she refused as she did, I would have told her she passed the test! And her response should be; "But you failed!" as she walked out of the store alone. Dom, I know you thought the test concept "childish"; but I couldn't help think of the way I thought the sub should have responded to his "you passed!" exclamation.

PrincessEllie -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 1:16:09 PM)
I'd have to say he was being a bad Dominant by making her do something illegal. I know that I personally with my self esteem issues would have walked out the door and then lied and said "I forgot I had it in my hands." His girl could have done that, and gotten into a bunch of trouble. Subbies trust Doms to do what is right by them, and this isn't right!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125