quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Yet, how many times have we seen it on these boards...and among our real life friends...the story of a submissive upset because her "trainer/mentor"...who had also indulged in BDSM play and/or sex with her... had dismissed her and "damnit, she had not meant to but she HAD developed feelings for him"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sapphirepleasure

CD,

Although *you* may see no need for anyone to engage with a trainer, can you accept that some of us who have have grown from the experience?  It's all about experience for me.  Sure, I would have liked to find a lasting relationship and learned in that context, but the reality for me at the time I was awakening to my submissive/slave desires was that I was going to be moving across the country in a few months.  So instead of putting everything on ice until I got to where I was going, I accepted an offer for 3 months of live-in training with an experienced dominant and I don't regret it on bit.  Maybe I didn't *need* to do it--there are as many paths of discovery as there are people on a journey--but it served to give me a good introduction to the lifestyle and various forms of play and I feel much better equipped to know what I have enjoyed and would like to experience more of as well as some things I'd just as soon avoid.  I also learned a lot about myself in the process, and about the mindset of a slave and I think that experience that is open, honest and respectful is always a good thing. 

Does the fact that there was sexual interaction (mutually desired) between us mean that I was abused or that the experience was somehow inauthentic?  I hardly think so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExSteelAgain

The conflict in this discussion appears to be over how we view the motives of trainers and I propose that the problems that occur are not always intentional. Some trainers work with a sub and end up collaring her eventually and both understand the goal when the process begins. That group I’m going to put on the side for a moment because we all agree they are fine and dandy. We have examples here of those who did just that. I didn’t see anyone slamming them and I hope they understand no criticism is directed at them.

But here is the group that causes us most of the disagreement because it is a nebulous area where the labels are later placed to fit what has happened. It is represented by a Dom who begins a friendship with a newbie, often online, and gradually begins to offer advice as friends often do. None of this is done under the label of training.

They eventually become very close as they chat if they are compatible intellectually.  He may meet her and eventually they may begin some type of physical relationship.  Her sensory system will be overwhelmed when introduced to bdsm and that she will focus on him as the one who gives her the newly found pleasures.

When the relationship ends, she may later refer to him as her trainer. He may even view himself as being the one who trained her. The thing here is that it could have all been unintentional although it is ignoring the dynamic that experienced Doms know is likely to emerge.

This could be where I err in saying most trainers are appalling because this group is in the majority I believe. I could compromise with the “unintentional” description of what happens. The subs from this group may later converse negatively about how they were trained by someone and then released unceremoniously, unless the relationship continues happily along. The Dom will counter that he was only training her and never had intentions of having a permanent relationship.

When you combine these unhappy “trained” subs with the other unhappy ones who were trained by the nefarious manipulating Dom we all despise, the numbers of those having unhappy experiences with trainers swell.