Jasmyn
Posts: 1234
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
|
In the op I saw two distinct things being said in this sentence:
expected me to reply promptly to emails, but he may not be able to reply as promptly because he was busy, life issues, etc
Anyone of the following scenarios could apply on their own, or a combination of two or all three. Thus was the statement:
- given as an order or a demand?
- said during a general discourse on the framework a particular dominant's dominant philosophy will expresses itself in real terms?
- a misunderstanding?
- given as an explanation that his preference was to be prompt with his replies however that may not always happen. Note he was to have said: "he may not be able to reply as promptly because he was busy"
The author does not tell us in what context the statement was said so we can only extrapolate on the text before us. Given the context of the thread question and the use of the statement as an 'example' of what the author was questioning; it was perceived the whole sentence was a 'double standard', when only the first sentence implies a 'd/std', as the latter expresses an explanation relating to the dom's own behaviour to the first. Thus the dom was a bad bad leroy brown for expecting something like that from someone he was just talking to.
So sorry if I seem reluctant to draw and quarter the dom based on this one example.
However the first statement, in terms of a framework for d/s relationships to be built upon, then yes it is a fine and just example of a dominant's expectations from/of their submissive. And in that context is a perfect example of the follow up statement in action:
quote:
What rules apply to the sub do not necessarily apply to the Dom
And
quote:
if you don't like it or want to argue about it, are you "submissive"? is a perfectly legitimate agrument, and question for a dom to ask. For the sub to ask themselves.
A possible response to the request to follow through with prompt emails would have being yes by all means, but I'm busy too, qualified by their own statement that the desire to be courteous is there but will not always happen as a matter of course, as they too are restrained by life issues, etc.
If it was a case of this being done as an order (the expectation of replying promptly to emails) then the sub was well within their rights to suggest as yet the dom wasn't in a position to be making orders, but if she was in submission to him, of course as an expectation of his, it would be a given to show him this type of respect if he commanded it.
Or to say, sorry I think we may not be on the same page...
The op then goes on to pretty much answer her own question.
quote:
After a few casual comments like these, I just got the impression that he wanted to sit back and relax while the sub does all the work. Am I being too hard on him?
Yes given they may have miscontrued his original emailing statement, and have used that as the schema for all his future behaviour and thoughts, thinking causation, rather than co-incidence, fullfilling their own prophecy.
So Cloudboy, pointing out that in some instances d/s isn't so black and white and suggesting the early stage of getting to know someone was not an appropiate time to hold such a black and white view, I'm not in disagreement... but there are two issues at hand here and most people have only addressed one.
Given my take on it, be interested to know, if infact anyone else feels as I do, that the dom in question made a conveniently dastardly enough villian? Did the dom actually do anything wrong?
_____________________________
quote:
"To learn the art of submission a slave must first give up the desires that drew him to submission in the first place." Mistress Jasmyn Jan 2005.
Visit My Website
|
RE: Double standard for Doms & subs? - 
Profile
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