RE: Trust test.

RE: Trust test. (Full Version)

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

Message

aldompdx -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 1:24:31 PM)
>I hope someone at the table served his a second helping of shut the frack up. >don't do it because some dumbass tells you too. Thus the term Wannabe (as in W bush). Wanting is very different than having You know what they say... The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, because over there is more bullshit.

MagiksSlave -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 3:26:09 PM)
LOL the grass is always greener over the septic tank Magik's slave

slaveish -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 4:18:14 PM)
I have an insight into this. Master commanded a certain thing of me. I refused. Twice. Later, as we were discussing the day, we talked about this incident. He said that if I had made a movement to do X (it was not illegal) he would have stopped me, explaining that my outright refusal showed that I lacked faith in his judgement. "Action, not thought." I am not saying that the person in question should have stolen but perhaps the Master was only testing the slave's obedience and trust. If the slave made a move to do as her Master asked, perhaps he would have stopped her as soon as she moved. Just a different perspective from a lesson I learned, not to say it would have turned out the same way.

MadRabbit -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 4:23:38 PM)
Hypothetically... if I was a slave... My trust in someone would be based on their responsible decisions. Hence, them NOT asking me to steal/kill/harm myself. Trust has to be based on something. If it wasnt, we wont trust someone. Personally, I expect every slave who ever meets me to base their trust in me on my moral code and my character...hence, in the fact that I wont ask them to do something that would harm them...like stealing which would land them in jail regardless of whatever romantic notions I have of "taking responsibility". You dont test someone's trust and obedience in you by having them do something that is detrimental to the reasons why they should trust and obey you in the first place. The Dom, in question, to me is just another fool obsessed with total power. The reality is that the relationships are based on consent from both parties. Trust is what provides that consent. And consent is what provides me with my authority. So in reality my authority is held in check by the power of consent...the reality that the slave doesnt have to be there if they dont want to. So...asking a slave to do something that would damage the trust that gave me my consent that gave me my authority...would make me an idiot.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 4:54:41 PM)
It's both a bad test AND a bad Dom. The only time this test ever worked was when God did it to Abraham. A Dom who plays God deserves to play alone. 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?

celticlord2112 -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 4:57:43 PM)
I prefer my slaves to think before they act. Much better results for everyone that way. quote: ORIGINAL: slaveish I have an insight into this. Master commanded a certain thing of me. I refused. Twice. Later, as we were discussing the day, we talked about this incident. He said that if I had made a movement to do X (it was not illegal) he would have stopped me, explaining that my outright refusal showed that I lacked faith in his judgement. "Action, not thought." I am not saying that the person in question should have stolen but perhaps the Master was only testing the slave's obedience and trust. If the slave made a move to do as her Master asked, perhaps he would have stopped her as soon as she moved. Just a different perspective from a lesson I learned, not to say it would have turned out the same way.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 4:58:57 PM)
By that measure, shouldn't she have passed the test? 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

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 6:39:50 PM)
quote: a certain thing of me. I refused. Twice. I am not saying that the person in question should have stolen but perhaps the Master was only testing the slave's obedience and trust. If the slave made a move to do as her Master asked, perhaps he would have stopped her as soon as she moved. Just a different perspective from a lesson I learned, not to say it would have turned out the same way. As always it depends on what your owner wants you to be trained in. Most masters prefer slaves to think about orders and be an active part of the relationship. Some masters prefer slaves to never think and always be a passive recipient. And a lot of masters prefer some of both. This test only proved that the master wasn't secure in the relationship and hadn't trained the slave to be what he wanted- and then blamed the slave for the failing.

slaveish -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 6:59:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Hypothetically... if I was a slave... My trust in someone would be based on their responsible decisions. Hence, them NOT asking me to steal/kill/harm myself. Trust has to be based on something. If it wasnt, we wont trust someone. Precisely. If you called yourself someone's slave (if you were a slave and if you had a Master) then do you not suppose you would know this person's basic values at the very least? This whole thing really sounds like either (a) a gigantic mindfuck, or (b) someone who only wishes he were a Master.

ownedandcollared -> RE: Trust test. (5/14/2007 10:51:09 PM)
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? While i think the test itself is kinda stupid, i was trained with the same kind of principles...that laws are secondary to my Master's wishes. He's never tried anything that ridiculous before, and He's pretty mature and secure, so i doubt he ever will, but I was taught that if i am told to do something, even if it is illegal, to do it. i don't know what i would do in that situation. Just some opposite-side perspective

MstrssPassion -> RE: Trust test. (5/15/2007 6:39:05 AM)
Seeing that you half ass quoted me by adding words I didn't say... could you please clarify what it is you are saying? quote: ORIGINAL: aldompdx >I hope someone at the table served his a second helping of shut the frack up. >don't do it because some dumbass tells you too. Thus the term Wannabe (as in W bush). Wanting is very different than having You know what they say... The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, because over there is more bullshit.

ennaozzie -> RE: Trust test. (5/15/2007 6:44:50 AM)
I can only give my opinoin but a Dom before taking on a sub or slave i would have thought would have got to know her or him well before getting together with him/her and trust would already be a done thing, well i would have thought so. I myself no matter how much i cared for someone would never do that, and i would loose respect in which case the loss of the want to serve. beanie beanie

celticlord2112 -> RE: Trust test. (5/15/2007 7:55:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedandcollared While i think the test itself is kinda stupid, i was trained with the same kind of principles...that laws are secondary to my Master's wishes. He's never tried anything that ridiculous before, and He's pretty mature and secure, so i doubt he ever will, but I was taught that if i am told to do something, even if it is illegal, to do it. i don't know what i would do in that situation. Just some opposite-side perspective A slave should ultimately grow to the point where she has absolute trust in her Master. Without trust, the entire dynamic of Master and slave breaks down. That being said, it is foolish, stupid, and ultimately destructive for any Master to "test" the level of trust his slaves have in him. The test itself is tantamount to the Master acknowledging a fundamental distrust of the slave, if the Master does not trust the slave, how far can the slave trust the Master? Thus the test is set up to ensure failure. The only way to win that game is not to play.

OsideGirl -> RE: Trust test. (5/15/2007 8:38:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 A slave should ultimately grow to the point where she has absolute trust in her Master. Without trust, the entire dynamic of Master and slave breaks down. Yeah, but she wasn't even his slave yet. She was a "potential".

astarri -> RE: Trust test. (5/15/2007 9:04:58 AM)
I think there are better ways he could have "tested" her though i agree with other thoughts presented. This seems like a serious task to put forth to a "prospective". I think the mind fuck is a wonderful thing after a relationship has been established. I would need to trust him though which this girl obviously did not. Good for her.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Trust test. (5/15/2007 9:21:34 AM)
Exactly...there was no trust to begin with...thus the test was failed before it began. Trust, like respect, must be earned on both sides through time and experience. There is no valid "Trust Test" anywhere. Trust grows, or it does not grow. That is the order of things. quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 A slave should ultimately grow to the point where she has absolute trust in her Master. Without trust, the entire dynamic of Master and slave breaks down. Yeah, but she wasn't even his slave yet. She was a "potential".

VaWolf -> RE: Trust test. (5/15/2007 10:53:10 AM)
I wold never ask my submissive to do anything illeagal or dangerous. I believe that it is a Doms responsability to to protect their sub or slave. I would question any Dom who orders the submissive to do something dangerous or illeagal.

MissOchistic -> RE: Trust test. (5/16/2007 4:57:45 AM)
Aquatic, Maybe he wanted a doormat. Iuno, some people might find that really sexy...i mean...they're all rough, but with a soft side, and they can roll up to any diameter you need....add a little crisco... mmm, doormats.

PrincessEllie -> RE: Trust test. (5/16/2007 8:28:17 AM)
The more I think about it, the more dangerous this idea seems. Obviously, shop lifting is not incredibly dangerous but the idea behind it is. He wanted to test the trust of his sub, but the trust goes both ways. He should have trusted his sub to answer the question "Do you trust me?" truthfully. The outcome is a bad one either way. If the sub doesn't do the action because it is dangerous, she fails. But if she does do it, despite the danger, her Dom fails.

FrankAr -> RE: Trust test. (5/16/2007 6:09:19 PM)
Greetings sub, I really detest testing of a sub or slave. If they do not have it in them, then they do not have it in them, full stop. I might ask them questions about subjects to see of their knowledge of them, to see what they like and don't like. If a sub or slave tested me, in any way shape or form, they would never see me again. I have no concern for being tested and for testing them. Just like if a sub or slave did a background check on me, I would just walk out the door. I have nothing to hide, if they want to know of things, just ask me. The bottom line, why test? Be well. Frank Ar.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875