|
Stephann -> RE: How can a 21 year old possibly be a Master? (3/9/2008 1:26:27 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact
You know, this might have been an entirely different thread had it been taken from the perspective I highlighted above.
I've been reading a lot of the responses since I posted last on this thread. There have been a lot of people younger than I that have made wonderful points. I fully acknowledge the fact that a general rule doesn't apply to everyone. Some people are the exception to the rule. Still, there are reasons that those generalizations exist.
Personally, I don't know a single 21 year old that I would agree with the particular title of "Master". Which is ok, considering I know some 40 year olds who slap the title on themselves without especially being worthy of it, either. In both age groups, there just really isn't enough real life experience in the lifestyle to warrent it. Yep. Sorry. This is another one of those areas that I don't equate what one has done on the net to be on the same level as the real time deal.
I suppose what I'm getting at for the sake of the discussion is, what has a person done to be considered a Master? Have they actually owned a slave, and be responsible for their existance? What skills have they Mastered? What experience have contributed to them thinking they should assume the title? Are they in control of themselves? Do they have the ability to control someone else? Yes, I know it's not everybody's thing, but how about their exposure to the leather community?
There is the slightest possibility that it takes more to be a Master, than simply being a dominant personality, or being the leader in a relationship.
Edited to fix a spelling mistake.
And to add, yes, experience counts for a lot.
Hiya Lady Pact,
You bet, experience counts for a lot.
I've been with many women, far more than the average man. The first few times I slept with a woman, I was pretty terrible. Yet we're not talking about a skill where I need to be graded. Certainly, being inexperienced in bed could lead to a dangerous situation. Yet my personality is such that if I'm not experienced in an activity, I'm not likely to do something dangerous. The assumption that an unskilled dominant is a dangerous dominant rings false in my ears. What is really being said, is that an unskilled dominant is an unknown factor. He might be dangerous, he might be harmless. Yet the ability to wield a crop, flogger, or cane effectively does not a skilled Master make.
I equate a Master with someone who is skilled at owning and caring for a slave. Some Masters have zero interest in the corporal aspects of M/s, and actively reject S&M (Goreans spring to mind here.) This doesn't make them any less an owner of their slaves; a person who owns a racehorse doesn't necessarily need to race them, to own them.
I agree, a 21 year old Master is generally less likely to be fully prepared for the burdens of slave owning than a 41 year old Master. But from where I stand, I find that most 41 year olds are equally unprepared to own a slave; it takes a very specific mindset and set of expectations in a relationship to, in my opinion, successfully and healthily own another person. I find it far more common and wise for people to engage in less demanding forms of Dominant/submissive relationships, just as I think it's more common and wise for people to enjoy a hot air balloon ride over hang gliding. They're similar activities, with very different physical and mental demands.
Back on topic: I don't see any specific skillset required for one to feel they are worthy of the title Master. Yet, I don't believe that anyone need call another person Master, unless they are owned by that person. My slave has been instructed to use the honorific "Sir" when meeting other dominants, unless otherwise instructed by that person. If she's told by that person to call him Master, she does. Not because I have recognized him to be such, but because her existance in such situations is for the pleasure of those around her and not herself. If he wants to be called Almighty Grand Puba of the Hippopatami, than that's exactly what she calls him. For myself, I don't call other people Master. Period. Ever. I don't even call myself 'A Master.' The title, for me, is exclusively reserved for my slaves, and slaves who feel compelled to use such a title.
Beyond the title, the first time I had a slave call me Master, I was 25. I wasn't mentally or physically prepared to actually own a slave yet, but I don't think anyone ever really is. I was mentally and physically ready to learn. I might have been ready to learn at 20 years of age. I do know that the older I was, the more prepared I was to learn, but I also know myself well enough to realize that owning a slave at 20 wouldn't have been dangerous for the slave. It's not unlike someone who says "I had sex at 18, but would have been more prepared for it at 22 years of age." The longer you wait for such things, the better prepared you'll be when you undertake them.... but you'd have missed out on four years of potential experience. Thus someone who started responsibly enjoying sex at 18 is likely to be far more experienced and skilled at 23, than someone who started enjoying at 22.
In short, it's far less important 'when' you engage in M/s or D/s relationships than it is 'how' and 'why' you engage in them. I find a positive attitude, enthusiasm, and responsibility to be vastly more important towards one being a competent "Master" than any birth date. These are the traits we should be addressing.
Stephan
|
|
|
|
