|
TreasureKY -> More Expectations… (4/9/2008 4:03:22 AM)
|
That word is bandied about here quite a bit… “expectations of a master”, “should subs have expectations”, “expectations and rules”, etc. I have noticed, however, that there appears to be this propensity for the word to have a either a positive or negative connotation based on whichever side of the slash it is coming from… in other words, expectations from dominants are good and expectations from submissives are bad.
Nonsense, I say.
What is an “expectation”, anyway? It is the act or the state of expecting… to “expect”. The definition of expect contains the following:
1. to regard as likely to happen;
2. to consider reasonable or due;
3. to presume; suppose or surmise; guess;
4. to consider obligatory; require;
5. to anticipate.
For the most part, expect implies confidently believing that an event will occur.
In terms of D/s, it is easy to see where expectations on the part of a dominant are granted. After all, the very premise of D/s is that the dominant has authority and/or control over the submissive… obedience by the submissive is anticipated, required, considered due, and regarded as likely to happen.
But what about expectations on the part of the submissive?
If your initial response is that the submissive shouldn’t have any expectations of his or her dominant, then please reconsider.
One of the most agreed upon concepts in WIITWD is that the foundation of D/s is trust. What is trust but the reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, etc. (or lack thereof) of a person… a confident expectation of their behavior?
Trust is generally built by a person behaving in a relatively consistent manner… whether bad or good. If my assistant is typically late for work, then I begin to trust that she will be late… it becomes my expectation that she will not be reliable to arrive in a timely manner. In the same manner, if my dominant consistently does what he says he will do, then I begin to trust that his word is good… and I expect that he will do as he says.
I propose that in developing trust, one is actually developing expectations.
And to be honest, the only people for whom I’ve no expectations are ones I have no vested interest in. Being asked to have no expectations is akin to asking me to not care.
If a dominant says that a submissive isn’t allowed to have any expectations, then I believe they are asking for the impossible… for a submissive to not care and to submit without trust. When I hear a dominant say, “I won’t be boxed in by expectations”, on the surface what I hear is, “I refuse to be held to my word. I refuse to be consistent in action. Do not expect me to behave in any particular manner at any particular time. I’m not dependable or trustworthy.”
Well, that's not good.
Of course, they might mean that they refuse to be held to an expectation based not on past experience, but desired future behavior. Expectations aren’t always reasonable in every circumstance. Just because my dominant has shown himself to be a thoughtful individual in general, doesn’t automatically mean that I can reasonably expect him to behave in a specific manner that I equate with being thoughtful.
For example, if I believe sending flowers for my birthday is a loving gesture, just because Firm has proved himself to be loving to me, it would be unreasonable of me to expect him to send flowers. That expectation would be based on my ideas, not his.
This is where the other highly regarded concept of D/s comes in… communication. The question becomes not whether expectations exist at all, but whether the expectations are sufficiently communicated and backed up by good reason with regard to your partner… in other words, are they compatible expectations?
Edited because I hate Microsoft.
|
|
|
|
