RE: Breaking a Sub

RE: Breaking a Sub (Full Version)

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

Message

MistressDolly -> RE: Breaking a Sub (11/19/2007 10:00:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: onlyHisgirl Do You prefer/enjoy "breaking in a sub/slave" or prefer/enjoy them to be automatically obedient? Why? Imo, most people, as creatures of survival, have some level of naturally dominant tendencies. Therefore, when I hear "submissive" or "slave", that does not denote a person who's automatically obedient, but rather, it describes a person wants to submit their power over to another person. They have to first be inspired... quote: ORIGINAL: onlyHisgirl As a sub, i am obedient but it takes some time at first because i am resistent plus it enjoy being "broken" ;-) I've never met a person who wants to submit their power over to me in a fight or struggle, i.e, be broken; in my eyes, that would be dominance not submission.

ctrlaltdelete -> RE: Breaking a Sub (11/19/2007 10:05:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cyntilating quote: ORIGINAL: SensibleSam There is an excellent movie called Breaker Morant. There's a scene in The Big Country where Gregory Peck finally breaks a particularly rebellious horse. .......and then there is a movie called " The Horse Whisperer" with Robert Redford... Nice! Loving all these profound Hollywood/Silver Screen analogies that so profoundly reflect the reality of training a girl in r/l!

SensibleSam -> RE: Breaking a Sub (11/19/2007 1:31:51 PM)
This must be what's its like to be a politician. I'm attacked for things I didn't say. I'm criticized for positions exactly the opposite of the position I took. Please read what I said before you all jump on me. Celeste43 points out that she has raised horses and I haven't. True enough. Then she lectures me on how you need to mold a horse's behavior with affection and care not with a whip. Why would she say this to me? That was my original point. Perhaps I wasn't completely clear. But I think it was rather more fun for her to erect a straw man to attack than to actually engage with what I said.. SteelofUtah wonders why horses are being discussed. I thought that was obvious. Sorry if this reference was obscure. In a lot of BDSM literature and discourse the term "breaking a sub" is used. This is a direct analogy to the term "breaking a horse". Many kinksters assume that breaking a sub means whipping them until they are compliant. I tried to point out that in fact real horse breaking and certainly that portrayed in films is very different. A whip isn't used. In fact there are many scenes in popular westerns where the bad guy is whipping a horse or a dog and the good guy punches him out. Pop culture is essentially unanimous in its condemnation of the physical abuse of animals. MidnightMaiden continues in this vein when she refers to "whip bearing cowboys". Where did she get this notion? Its not as if I endorsed this idea or as if it has any basis in Pop Culture. The only whips used regularly in Old West pop culture are those used by stage coach drivers - which is another issue separate from the "breaking" issue. ShadowsLap and others strongly oppose "breaking the spirit". OK. If you want to debate "breaking the spirit" that's fine with me, however I certainly didn't advocate any such thing. Quite the opposite in fact. If you want to see this sort of thing in the movies try Cool Hand Luke or some other prison movies. "Breaking the Spirit" is only portrayed in the movies as a negative. Typically the hero is abused in an attempt to break his spirit and he resists heroically. Nobody confuses this with horse training in main stream Hollywood. Breaking a horse is portrayed in American films as cowboy showing the horse who's boss. The horse lives happily ever after. Roy Rodger's Trigger was broken. Lee's Traveler was broken. As was Alexander's Bucephalus. Breaking a horse isn't a tragedy for the horse. These high spirited and heroic horses only achieved greatness after they were broken. At the risk of being pedantic much of the problem here is that these posters are confusing denotation with connotation. They are getting confused with the connotations of the term breaking which they abhor, not the actually breaking that is done in animal training. Read the Wikipedia article on horse breaking. You will find that it is a synonym for "horse gentling". Writers since Xenophon have preached that force should not be used on horses. Horse's have dominance hierarchies and the act of breaking or gentling them is the act of inserting oneself in to their hierarchy at the top. Much the same thing is true of dogs. Training doesn't change the nature of the animal - they are hierarchical animals before and hierarchical animals after. Horses and dogs are happy after appropriate training. They now see their master as the "top dog". Their very essence is to live within a ranking system. Inserting yourself at the top exploits this fact but it doesn't do violence to the animal's expectations. If you weren't the top dog they would accept some other dog. Most mammals have dominance determining competitions. Certainly dogs and horses do. As do the gorillas and baboons who are rather closer to us. In these competitions the idea isn't to kill or to seriously injure the opponent. Selection favors strategies that establish dominance-submission rankings with the least amount of bloodshed. Breaking a horse is a dominance competition not an actual breaking of bones or spirits. Breaking is hyperbolic term. It is not meant literally anymore than "creaming the opposition" implies running them through a blender. Understood this way we can understand BDSM better. The subs who advertise on this site are seeking a man who can confidently assert his position as "top dog". They want to be broken (gentled) in the sense that they want to have a well defined place in a dominance hierarchy. Some of this sexual. We know that among the great apes females are deeply responsive to the group's dominant male and hardly responsive at all to lower ranking males. Presumably some human females likewise only feel completely fulfilled when they consort with a dominant male. What we are discussing here is a technique for demonstrating dominance. In horses it typically involves riding them until they are exhausted. With human subs it can take many forms - but that's another discussion.

Cyntilating -> RE: Breaking a Sub (11/19/2007 2:17:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ctrlaltdelete quote: ORIGINAL: Cyntilating quote: ORIGINAL: SensibleSam There is an excellent movie called Breaker Morant. There's a scene in The Big Country where Gregory Peck finally breaks a particularly rebellious horse. .......and then there is a movie called " The Horse Whisperer" with Robert Redford... Nice! Loving all these profound Hollywood/Silver Screen analogies that so profoundly reflect the reality of training a girl in r/l! sarcasm??

ctrlaltdelete -> RE: Breaking a Sub (11/19/2007 2:21:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cyntilating sarcasm?? I would need to be run out of town like the rabid dingo that stole the baby if it weren't!

feralkyttin -> RE: Breaking a Sub (11/19/2007 5:18:43 PM)
I know I'm not a Master, but thought maybe my opinion could be of value. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to break a submissive. If I possessed a submissive, I would want them to be in top working order. I would want them to be well put together, well behaved, self reliant, self disciplined, self assured, and a great many other things, prior to owning them. Why? So that they could be an asset to me. That way we could progress faster. That way, we wouldn't be wasting valuable time, for time is limited. I may not understand what you meant by breaking a sub though. I just think that if something is broken, you should fix it. If something is working already... Well... You don't fix things that aren't broken, do you?

Rule -> RE: Breaking a Sub (11/19/2007 5:37:40 PM)
Fast reply: A broken submissive is worthless. Breaking a natural submissive is equivalent to hammering a six hundred karat diamond into worthless dust. It is also a sacrilege. See http://www.collarchat.com/m_1362306/mpage_1/tm.htm

Cyntilating -> RE: Breaking a Sub (11/19/2007 6:02:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ctrlaltdelete quote: ORIGINAL: Cyntilating sarcasm?? I would need to be run out of town like the rabid dingo that stole the baby if it weren't! well.....okie dokie then

Chryseis -> RE: Breaking a Sub (11/19/2007 7:31:12 PM)
Evening All, I for one enjoy the force. I think there is something primal in it and love a man showing me he is stronger than me and merciful because he can be. I don't think braking my will has a bad connotation at all. I am not a doormat, I do not obey every man who claims he is a dom and I don't believe that makes me any less submissive. chryseis

MadRabbit -> RE: Breaking a Sub (11/19/2007 8:34:06 PM)
I really enjoyed some of these fantasy based replies. Of course, however, the realistic fact remains that "breaking" someone in the sense of "forcing them to do something they did not want to do" would be in direct opposition to the notion of "consent" which is what the majority of the people I have met in the kink community use to determine ethical behavior. "Forcing someone to obey" would be abuse. ("Forcing someone" and "Pushing some past thier own inhibitions" are not the same thing) So I guess what your refering to is the "I'll act like a brat and pretend to not want to do it until you give me a spanking to show me how dominant you are." Some guys like that stuff. Personally, when I have to deal with it, I just simply find it annoying and deterimental to the enjoyment of otherwise peaceful and fulfilling relations. I have very little patience with power struggles. If I wanted to argue, I could leave this website and go back to egalatarian relationships. I'm of the opinion that the only way you can get consistent obedience in a consensual power exchange is if the individual obeying takes responsibility for that obedience. How this whole notion of "breaking" someone fits into a consenual power exchange is honestly beyond me. If someone consents to being broken, then are they REALLY being broken in the sense of having their will destroyed or are they just simply being stubborn until they get enough external factors from me until they decide to get up off their ass and use their will to do what I want? I see nothing wrong with having that fantasy aspect incorporated into a relationship, but to somehow to quanitify a series of power games engineered by a brat looking for a spanking to being on par with breaking someone's will doesn't do either scenario much justice. To somehow pretend that "breaking someone's will" has anything to do with a consensual, realistic power exchange doesn't do much justice to consensual, realistic power exchanges either.....

Lkg4MstrSacramen -> RE: Breaking a Sub (11/20/2007 1:04:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SensibleSam This must be what's its like to be a politician. I'm attacked for things I didn't say. I'm criticized for positions exactly the opposite of the position I took. Please read what I said before you all jump on me. Celeste43 points out that she has raised horses and I haven't. True enough. Then she lectures me on how you need to mold a horse's behavior with affection and care not with a whip. Why would she say this to me? That was my original point. Perhaps I wasn't completely clear. But I think it was rather more fun for her to erect a straw man to attack than to actually engage with what I said.. SteelofUtah wonders why horses are being discussed. I thought that was obvious. Sorry if this reference was obscure. In a lot of BDSM literature and discourse the term "breaking a sub" is used. This is a direct analogy to the term "breaking a horse". Many kinksters assume that breaking a sub means whipping them until they are compliant. I tried to point out that in fact real horse breaking and certainly that portrayed in films is very different. A whip isn't used. In fact there are many scenes in popular westerns where the bad guy is whipping a horse or a dog and the good guy punches him out. Pop culture is essentially unanimous in its condemnation of the physical abuse of animals. MidnightMaiden continues in this vein when she refers to "whip bearing cowboys". Where did she get this notion? Its not as if I endorsed this idea or as if it has any basis in Pop Culture. The only whips used regularly in Old West pop culture are those used by stage coach drivers - which is another issue separate from the "breaking" issue. ShadowsLap and others strongly oppose "breaking the spirit". OK. If you want to debate "breaking the spirit" that's fine with me, however I certainly didn't advocate any such thing. Quite the opposite in fact. If you want to see this sort of thing in the movies try Cool Hand Luke or some other prison movies. "Breaking the Spirit" is only portrayed in the movies as a negative. Typically the hero is abused in an attempt to break his spirit and he resists heroically. Nobody confuses this with horse training in main stream Hollywood. Breaking a horse is portrayed in American films as cowboy showing the horse who's boss. The horse lives happily ever after. Roy Rodger's Trigger was broken. Lee's Traveler was broken. As was Alexander's Bucephalus. Breaking a horse isn't a tragedy for the horse. These high spirited and heroic horses only achieved greatness after they were broken. At the risk of being pedantic much of the problem here is that these posters are confusing denotation with connotation. They are getting confused with the connotations of the term breaking which they abhor, not the actually breaking that is done in animal training. Read the Wikipedia article on horse breaking. You will find that it is a synonym for "horse gentling". Writers since Xenophon have preached that force should not be used on horses. Horse's have dominance hierarchies and the act of breaking or gentling them is the act of inserting oneself in to their hierarchy at the top. Much the same thing is true of dogs. Training doesn't change the nature of the animal - they are hierarchical animals before and hierarchical animals after. Horses and dogs are happy after appropriate training. They now see their master as the "top dog". Their very essence is to live within a ranking system. Inserting yourself at the top exploits this fact but it doesn't do violence to the animal's expectations. If you weren't the top dog they would accept some other dog. Most mammals have dominance determining competitions. Certainly dogs and horses do. As do the gorillas and baboons who are rather closer to us. In these competitions the idea isn't to kill or to seriously injure the opponent. Selection favors strategies that establish dominance-submission rankings with the least amount of bloodshed. Breaking a horse is a dominance competition not an actual breaking of bones or spirits. Breaking is hyperbolic term. It is not meant literally anymore than "creaming the opposition" implies running them through a blender. Understood this way we can understand BDSM better. The subs who advertise on this site are seeking a man who can confidently assert his position as "top dog". They want to be broken (gentled) in the sense that they want to have a well defined place in a dominance hierarchy. Some of this sexual. We know that among the great apes females are deeply responsive to the group's dominant male and hardly responsive at all to lower ranking males. Presumably some human females likewise only feel completely fulfilled when they consort with a dominant male. What we are discussing here is a technique for demonstrating dominance. In horses it typically involves riding them until they are exhausted. With human subs it can take many forms - but that's another discussion. shoo, go away, you are drawing flies.

MadRabbit -> RE: Breaking a Sub (11/20/2007 2:50:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SensibleSam Breaking a horse is a dominance competition not an actual breaking of bones or spirits. Breaking is hyperbolic term. It is not meant literally anymore than "creaming the opposition" implies running them through a blender. I usually win the dominance competition by shoving my submissive out of the sandbox, ruffling up her hair, and kicking sand in her face.

laurell3 -> RE: Breaking a Sub (11/20/2007 2:50:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit I really enjoyed some of these fantasy based replies. Of course, however, the realistic fact remains that "breaking" someone in the sense of "forcing them to do something they did not want to do" would be in direct opposition to the notion of "consent" which is what the majority of the people I have met in the kink community use to determine ethical behavior. "Forcing someone to obey" would be abuse. ("Forcing someone" and "Pushing some past thier own inhibitions" are not the same thing) So I guess what your refering to is the "I'll act like a brat and pretend to not want to do it until you give me a spanking to show me how dominant you are." Some guys like that stuff. Personally, when I have to deal with it, I just simply find it annoying and deterimental to the enjoyment of otherwise peaceful and fulfilling relations. I have very little patience with power struggles. If I wanted to argue, I could leave this website and go back to egalatarian relationships. I'm of the opinion that the only way you can get consistent obedience in a consensual power exchange is if the individual obeying takes responsibility for that obedience. How this whole notion of "breaking" someone fits into a consenual power exchange is honestly beyond me. If someone consents to being broken, then are they REALLY being broken in the sense of having their will destroyed or are they just simply being stubborn until they get enough external factors from me until they decide to get up off their ass and use their will to do what I want? I see nothing wrong with having that fantasy aspect incorporated into a relationship, but to somehow to quanitify a series of power games engineered by a brat looking for a spanking to being on par with breaking someone's will doesn't do either scenario much justice. To somehow pretend that "breaking someone's will" has anything to do with a consensual, realistic power exchange doesn't do much justice to consensual, realistic power exchanges either..... What MR said. I think what you are missing Sam is that here the concept of being "broken" is usually negative. I'm really kind of clueless what a woman has to do with a horse at all. In response to the OP I believe what you are referring to is the actual intensity of being overcome, which many find erotic. However, I can't say those aren't usually referring to consentual overpowering as opposed to the concept of emotional "breaking" which is what is being discussed here. I'm not sure I'm ever "bratty" although I do enjoy primal physical overpowering actions. I believe the OP's question is about bratiness and overcoming as opposed to instant submission, not some illusionary viewpoint that one can "break" another human being and make them into something they don't want to be by force or psychological manipulation. While someone else can give you the impetus to change, people change because they want to, not because someone else does.

TolerableCruelty -> RE: Breaking a Sub (11/21/2007 12:33:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: onlyHisgirl Dear Sirs, Do You prefer/enjoy "breaking in a sub/slave" or prefer/enjoy them to be automatically obedient? Why? As a sub, i am obedient but it takes some time at first because i am resistent plus it enjoy being "broken" ;-) Thank You for Your comments and thoughts, oHgirl If this were the Gorean Forums, I'd ask why in hell you thought it was all about you and your enjoyment... Since we're not, then My personal preference is for them to be obedient from the start. Why would I want to waste the time breaking my property, then have to spend more time trying to piece it back together ? Come in, get to work, follow the rule, and life is more enjoyable for all parties involved. T.R.

kinkypuppy2 -> RE: Breaking a Sub (12/3/2007 5:08:53 PM)
don't like broken people, Do not like to see it happen.

Lumus -> RE: Breaking a Sub (12/3/2007 5:24:43 PM)
I don't break, I educate. This may assist the submissive in breaking bad habits. This may help the submissive break through a barrier holding them back from what they want. It's semantics, folks. No word has a connotation other than what you give it. If you don't believe me, I'll ask which is more negative, submissive or slave. [8D] Wouldn't y'all love -that- topic?

stacee -> RE: Breaking a Sub (12/5/2007 8:58:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: onlyHisgirl Oh, i purposedly used the term "break" to cause conversation and well, that's what a former owner called it. i rolled my eyes when He said that to me over the phone because i'm not a horse. He had said "you're a wild horse that needs to be tamed and broken. So I'm going to break you." i think the term probably is more like retrained or molded. There are certain Masters who "got it" you know? Like They say sit and i sit, but a couple have said it and a part of me wants to defy to see what they do. Call it brattiness but i like to be shown who's in charge. ;-) Have a great thanksgiving if i'm not back on here. :-) I'm with you on this one...especially on the "got it" comment, lol.

breatheasone -> RE: Breaking a Sub (12/5/2007 10:24:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lumus I don't break, I educate. This may assist the submissive in breaking bad habits. This may help the submissive break through a barrier holding them back from what they want. It's semantics, folks. No word has a connotation other than what you give it. If you don't believe me, I'll ask which is more negative, submissive or slave. [8D] Wouldn't y'all love -that- topic? Sure thing...neither one is negitive. I'm not entirely sure anyone would think either one of those words are negitive. I could be wrong...[&:]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875