|
Padriag -> RE: Masters? Do you have set rules and expectations for your submissive? (1/2/2008 1:41:35 PM)
|
Reading over your posts and mine, I think you and I are opperating on two fundamentally different premises. Follow me on this and see if it helps make sense out of what we both said. Because in a sense, we're both right... in certain contexts.
What you state below is true... assuming a dominant is in pursuit of a specific submissive. Let's say Mr Domly see's a submissive he really likes and decides he wants her... he wants her so much he's willing to go out of his way to attract her and garner her submission. In that case he would have to find out what inspires her, what attracts her, etc. He would have to work out what methods of leadership work best with her, how to motivate her, etc. He might even have to change his rules and expectations to account for her personal differences. Given that premise, what you wrote not only makes sense, I agree it's absolutely true.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
But you can't inspire someone unless you know what inspires that person. And don't forget that the reasons why a particular person wants to submit to you might be very shallow at first. The person might simply find you physically attractive. OK, that's a nice start, but it's not enough to build a relationship on.
The issue, even as you've framed it, is training a sub to please you, and in order to do that, you have to learn who the sub is in order to figure out what kind of motivation works and what kind doesn't. People aren't just born knowing how to please Padriag. They make well-intentioned mistakes. They make mistakes because they don't know better. They make mistakes because they've never been taught not to. It's really a question of pedagogy. What method of instruction works best? Well, it depends on the person being instructed...
Also, much of this depends on what kind of "leadership" we're talking about. You can "lead" someone into a one-time act without knowing much about him or her. Agreed. But I don't think you can "lead" a person over the long term without knowing a great deal about who that person is, what he or she holds dear, what he or she fears, and so on.
Of course I believe that you have to be yourself. I'm not talking about changing who you are in order to conform to someone else's ideal. That's not being a dom. And yes, there are people you simply won't be compatible with.
But... consider this from a different premise.
Suppose Mr Domly isn't interested in any particular submissive... rather than pursue one or a few submissives, he instead "puts himself out there" and waits for the submissives to come to him. Since he's not trying to attract any particular submissive, the only thing he can do is advertise himself as effectively and clearly as he can. He has to do a good job of demonstrating who he is, what he offers, the advantages of submitting to him, etc. because that's his primary means of attracting submissives. To improve his odds he needs to focus on attracting a specific type of submissive, rather than a specific individual, and again he needs to effectively advertise himself to that archtype. So for example if he wants a masochist, he needs to demonstrate what an amazingly cool sadist he is to convey to all the masochistic submissives out there the advantage of submitting to him in particular. He advertises his own training methods, his expectations, his desires, fantasies, etc. because by doing so he's "calling" to the sort of submissives that will be attracted by that sort of thing... whatever his "thing" may be. As a result, he doesn't have to do any changing or adjusting because the process has already attracted those who like what he already is offering.
But of course that method may well run afoul if our second Mr Domly decides to pursue a submissive who isn't otherwise attracted to his "plumage" as it were.
It seems our disagreement revolves largely around a matter of approach. I found that intriguing and thought you might as well.
|
|
|
|
