|
LadiesBladewing -> RE: Sex (9/3/2005 6:57:57 PM)
|
There is nothing wrong with sexual servitude, and nothing wrong with servitude that -doesn't- involve sex. The variety of skills and talents brought to both sides of the collar make an infinite group of possibilities, and all of them are good if it is satisfying to everyone involved.
Some of us don't use a lot of sex (or use sexual activity) or even scening a lot in our activities. I can only discuss with any accuracy -our- situation, but it is a good example of a situation where sex is not really a part of the picture for most of the submissives involved.
Our focus is service oriented, and we are a collective, so our servants have to be prepared to serve both men and women, and to serve in a variety of situations--as well as providing service to the abbey household as a whole. Our goal is service as a form of spiritual growth, so the physical and mental aspects have a more limited place in our training and activities. We use certain activities that are claimed by the bdsm lifestyle as bdsm techniques, but we use them as tools for spiritual development, much as self-flaggelation, bondage and other ascetic practices have been used by spiritual explorers/ascetics througout known history. We value the BDSM community for the knowledge so generously shared (after all, where else can one learn how to use a flogger, or properly give a cleansing enema, or how to safely bind an acetic for meditation? Those things aren't taught--even in spiritual conclaves--anymore!)
What this means for our servants is that the focus is first on service. Some of our servants are even married, their spouses knowing about the abbey and their participation with us, and secure in knowing that we are about spirit and service, and their sexual needs will continue to be met (joyfully) within their marriage.
The core of our household are in a committed relationship, and we don't swing, so someone coming to join us who had a real desire for sexually-oriented scening and even having sex as part of the relationship, or someone who needed a one-on-one relationship probably would be very unhappy if they came to serve with us. We gravitate, when exploring profiles, towards those who serve for other things than for sexual satisfaction, only because it isn't particularly the point of why we're involved in this, in our situation, to provide those things, and taking on a servant whose needs one cannot meet or at least make arrangements to have met seems, at least to us, to be irresponsible.
For us, it is helpful to know that a submissive or slave is seeking something other than sexual service. It means that there is a good chance that we can meet their needs and further their growth. If sexual activity is a requirement, they are at a disadvantage with us. We have a limit to how many we can care for within our core, and how well we can care for them--and when a servant -does- become a sexual partner, they have first become a member of our core--they are -family-. This takes us years to decide, and they would have to be a servant whom we'd come to know well enough that we would be ready and willing to accept them to the inner core of our household. That doesn't mean that we feel that sexual service is "less"...just that it isn't a good fit for our circumstance, except in special circumstances that develop over a period of getting to know and develop an intimate relationship with a particular servant.
Lady Zephyr
quote:
ORIGINAL: pollux
....this is puzzling to me.
Is it just a matter of politeness? Is it a sign of D/s maturity that one "grows out of" an interest in the sexual component? Is it an elitist thing? Is it really true that people who have bedroom kinks are not "real"? Is it the fact that some people just aren't interested in the sexual component? Is it part of the Mistress/slave dynamic that the dominant partner is permitted to profess an interest in certain activities, while subs/slaves are supposed to repress this? Some kind of a cultural tease & denial thing going on?
|
|
|
|
