From IM conversation

From IM conversation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

wolffeathers -> From IM conversation (12/22/2005 7:06:09 AM)
[09:59] friend: but even that is a form of self punishment, they are being punished because of an internal desire to be punished. It's a consensual arrangment. [09:59] friend: Yu are just serving as a tool to thier desires and them to yours This was from a small conversation about various things that had a small amount of BDSM in it. My friend is not heavy into BDSM, so she isn't sure about how this all works. However, I see her point in this. The Dom is a tool to give the sub someone to serve, therefore fullfilling the subs needs. The sub is a tool to serve the Dom, therefore fullfilling the Doms needs. I really had no reply for her. I can see her point, as well as seeing the point of view of a Dom (no, the sub is there to fullfill ME, I do not serve in any way), but, after thinking about it, I'm not so sure that's correct. Wondering what the other Doms/Masters/Misstresse and the subs/slaves feel about what about that. It just seems...odd

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: From IM conversation (12/22/2005 7:09:31 AM)
We choose to get into relationships because our lives are more fulfilled with those people as part of it than it would be without them. This is true of any relationship we choose to get into. We are not just "tools" but we are all enablers to reach mutual fulfillment. We simply reach different TYPES of fulfillment.

Padriag -> RE: From IM conversation (12/22/2005 7:25:10 AM)
If the relationship is a healthy one, then yes, both are fulfilling needs in the other. In a D/s relationship this remains true. But it is also true that in a D/s relationship it is the dominant who has the greater degree of control, sets the rules, the goals, etc. It might reduce the contradiction for you if you replaced the word serve with fulfill. Taking care of and fulfilling needs in your partner is not the same thing as serving your partner.

OscarHargraves -> RE: From IM conversation (12/22/2005 7:41:35 AM)
Her view is correct ........ for her. And his view may be correct for him. The dynamics of this tend to flow and change as time goes on together. He may never feel he is serving but she may truly feel that he is serving her need to serve and be submissive. It can be both and work both ways. That's fine as long as it works for them.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: From IM conversation (12/22/2005 7:46:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Padriag same thing as serving your partner. Excellent point. Also, to serve and service is not the same as submission.

sweetwhisper -> RE: From IM conversation (12/22/2005 7:53:26 AM)
i agree. as a slave my needs are met by serving my Master, so it's definitely a give and take. It's probably why i differ with the whole submission is a gift sentiment - it may be a gift however; you do receive something in return.

veronicaofML -> RE: From IM conversation (12/22/2005 8:10:17 AM)
not enough data to form a factual conclusion... answer is unknown at this time

NakedOnMyChain -> RE: From IM conversation (12/22/2005 2:27:39 PM)
quote: Wondering what the other Doms/Masters/Misstresse and the subs/slaves feel about what about that. It just seems...odd It might seem odd to you because you choose to view relationships, even BDSM ones as more than merely tools. At least that's why it seems odd to me. Sure, the people in my life serve a purpose, but to denigrate them as merely "tools" doesn't work for me. The difference between a dominant and submissive's relationship and functioning as a tool is that you don't give anything back to a tool. A BDSM relationship does give something back to each partner. You are giving and taking, regardless of position. Of course people will often use each other in object play, but they are still both giving and receiving. I can see your friend's point, but I think labeling those important people in your life as "tools" is simply an easy term for her.

Focus50 -> RE: From IM conversation (12/22/2005 3:09:33 PM)
"Tool" is a poor word choice but yes, one does mutually require the other for fulfillment. For instance, it's not the first time I've said that a Master without a slave is just a man.... D/s or M/s relationships revolve around a dynamic that requires a dominant and submissive "half" to form the whole of that relationship - two opposite sides of the same coin to compliment each other.... But it's also true of any hetero/vanilla relationship too - one still compliments the other or is the "tool" for the other if you like.... Focus.

thetammyjo -> RE: From IM conversation (12/22/2005 3:14:59 PM)
"Tool" is a bit heartless but it might turn some people on. In my slave-owner relationship with Fox (and anyone I've owned before him also) it is really about me first and foremost -- I focus on myself first and on training my slave to give me good service. This doesn't mean I don't consider his needs and desires just that I do what I find is good for me first as long as it does not harm him. If he didn't get far more from focusing on me first as well, then we wouldn't be together.

MizSuz -> RE: From IM conversation (12/22/2005 3:59:53 PM)
Reciprocity: rec·i·proc·i·ty n. pl. rec·i·proc·i·ties A reciprocal condition or relationship. A mutual or cooperative interchange of favors or privileges, especially the exchange of rights or privileges of trade between nations. Taken from the American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, Online. Wordnet of Princeton University states: A relation of mutual dependence or action or influence [syn: reciprocality] A mutual exchange of commercial or other privileges That's the basis of any relationship. Some people say the top serves the bottom and if that is the nomenclature they prefer then more power to them. Some say the bottom has the ultimate power (power of "no") and if that is their prefered mindset I'm all good with that. Doesn't really matter how people divide up the power, in the end people have relationship needs and if they aren't getting met then change may be imminent. One would hope that the goal in any relationship is to address each other's wants and needs. Why be in a relationship that doesn't?

wolffeathers -> RE: From IM conversation (12/22/2005 9:41:04 PM)
Thanks for the replys. She was a bit worried that me asking that would get lots of "your stupid for that". Agreed that using the word tool was a bit much, but that is how this friend views things (I've known her for about 8 years now).

candystripper -> RE: From IM conversation (12/23/2005 1:30:13 AM)
If it were true we were all just tools in a tool box it would surely be easier to mate. Instead, we are real people, and wish to feel we can trust the person we are intimate with; that they value us; even that they "get us". i think this is a universal human need and is not very different in BDSM than in vanilla; there are just more points of connection to meet. candytripper

justheather -> RE: From IM conversation (12/23/2005 12:13:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wolffeathers [09:59] friend: Yu are just serving as a tool to thier desires and them to yours The Dom is a tool to give the sub someone to serve, therefore fullfilling the subs needs. The sub is a tool to serve the Dom, therefore fullfilling the Doms needs. I choose to believe, and have experienced that there is some synergistic effect present that, on perhaps what we might call a spiritual level, raises us above the status of tools, but I can understand where this person is coming from at a very basic level. MizSuz: Reciprocity, yes, thats a good word. Still. Still I believe there is a point at which what we create together transcends my needs and His needs and becomes something that exists on its own in a certain richness and beauty that goes beyond the filling of need. There is something to be found beyond the fulfillment of need, after all. When its really, really right, that is. Otherwise, yes, I agree with this idea. Maybe I shouldnt have another glass of Petit Sirah just yet.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125