pinksugarsub
Posts: 1224
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
A few days ago in the “Procuring” thread, softness made the following comment in her original post:
quote:
ORIGINAL: softness
... Sir has told me again and again that I am secure in my position as long as I am pleasing.
... He will not seek to replace me as long as I am pleasing ...
At that time, I knew this comment niggled at me, but as it wasn’t really relevant to that particular thread. I also wanted to give it some time and consideration before I voiced my thoughts.
Generally, the idea that a dominant would only keep a slave or submissive so long as he or she is pleasing seems to be a reasonable requirement… though not exclusively from a dominant perspective. I would posit that most people, regardless of orientation or lifestyle choice, would have a difficult time staying committed to someone who behaved in a manner they did not like.
I suppose the underlying difference, though, is the impression that there would be less leeway with a dominant. Not that they require perfection, but, due to the nature of the D/s relationship, there is a higher expectation of compliance and behaving in a pleasing manner placed on the submissive.
Another prominent difference is that this is more likely an upfront and spoken condition placed upon the relationship. I would imagine it is rare for a man to propose marriage to a woman with the caveat that he would only stay married to her for as long as she is pleasing to him.
There is also the commonly accepted concept that, like marriage, collaring a slave is a lifelong commitment. Though, also like marriage, it is generally accepted that it may not work out. It’s just not typically voiced when people get married.
Which brings me to the crux of why softness’ statement “bothered” me… because it is voiced, it is an ultimatum. Please me or you will be replaced.
Ultimatums, in and of themselves, are not really a problem. Whether recognized or not, we live with ultimatums all the time. If you do not get a license, you cannot legally drive a car… if you do not meet entrance requirements, you cannot attend college… if you do not show up for work, you will not get paid… etcetera.
What is different about this particular ultimatum is that it isn’t absolute.
As I intimated above, it would be unusual for a dominant to require perfection from his slave or submissive. Unless DV was one who required absolute perfection from softness, then his statement to her isn’t true. Otherwise, one simple act by her that he found displeasing would have him looking for her replacement.
I doubt that softness’ position is that unsecured. I suspect that DV allows for her to make mistakes and to occasionally displease him.
However, that brings up the second difference with this particular ultimatum… it isn’t specifically defined. At what point do the little displeasures earn softness replacement? Where can softness ever find security in her relationship if she doesn’t know if the very next screw up will send her packing?
I would imagine that most dominants would defend this ultimatum by claiming that the willingness and effort to please is what counts in the end… that as long as the submissive or slave was making a genuine attempt to be pleasing, that the error would not be counted against her. While I would question just how absolute that particular statement would be (if a slave or submissive consistently failed to please… no matter how much she wanted to and how much she tried… I suspect there would eventually be a point where the dominant would give up or lose interest), it still serves to emphasize that the original ultimatum wasn’t accurate.
In D/s relationships where truthfulness and trust are so highly vaunted, I question the wisdom of a dominant making such an ultimatum… one that, for all intents and purposes, is not true. Since it seems to be a common ultimatum, is there some other purpose for this that I am missing?
treasureKY, I see similar statements made here and on the other side. As you point out, they lack any specific meaning, but to me , they also indicate a misunderstanding what a D/s relationship dynamic really is.
IMO, neither the Dom nor the s-type will remain in a relationship in which they cannot get their basic wants/needs met. There might be some exceptions, such as when one became disabled or ill after collaring, but in general a s-type will/should depart an unfulfilling relationship just as a Dom will/should.
This notion that 's-types' get their wants/needs soley met by pleasing their Doms strikes me as hooey. A Dom who will not extend Himself to care for His s-type will/should find Himself holding an empty collar.
I think there's a great deal of romaticising and fantasy in some members' posts. If that is something they enjoy, be all means, engage in it. But s-types do not lose all ego upon being collared, any more than Doms feel nothing but selfishness towards their collared s-types.
If a Dom does not please His collared s-type, she is every bit as likely to leave Him as any risk she might face of being rejected by Him.
pinkieplum
< Message edited by pinksugarsub -- 6/25/2008 1:25:54 AM >
_____________________________
|
RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... - 
Profile
But that was damn funny. 
Also, thank the STARS that you know how to pronounce Domme. Do you know I actually met someone who said "Dommy"? 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread