Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first

Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (Full Version)

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

Message

lobodomslavery -> Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (12/29/2008 2:10:53 PM)
ive heard it said that in order to be a good Mistress, one should be a servant first and work themselves up that way you can sympathise with the servant point of view and empathise with them. is this credible in your opinion, or does it really matter if you have served or not, is this another example of political correctness gone mad or is it only right after all should servants know that those they serve have served others before or does it really matter kevin

CatdeMedici -> RE: Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (12/29/2008 2:15:21 PM)
I believe that is the practice described in "The Story of O"--however, from My perspective, I DID spend time as a submissive when I began to define Me, I did it to (A) make sure I was a Dominant and (B) to understand what a submissive MIGHT go through. I was a service sub, I was a sexual sub and I tried to be a slave ( I failed at this one----) I don't think you HAVE to be one to be good at the other--but I did to learn and I'm very glad I did, IMHO I think it made ME a better Dominant in the world I was creating.

YoursMistress -> RE: Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (12/29/2008 2:17:21 PM)
One might just as well proclaim that a sub can't be a good sub until having "served" as a Dom first to better appreciate their position. I vote against any rules saying that anyone should do anything before anything else. yours Hmm, I still need a signature.

DarkSteven -> RE: Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (12/29/2008 2:18:58 PM)
I'm a Dom and I don't wanna serve. Any questions?

VampiresLair -> RE: Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (12/29/2008 2:19:32 PM)
AS I have said before... submitting would never have made me better at something since I would have been a miserable and unhappy submissive. I would gain no knowledge into how someone who enjoyed doing those things functioned, so it never seemed like something to waste my time on.For some it does help, for me it would not.

JustDarkness -> RE: Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (12/29/2008 2:20:28 PM)
I don't need to be a dentist to go to the dentist

LaTigresse -> RE: Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (12/29/2008 2:22:55 PM)
For ME, it is not a credible rule. I spent too many years, with people trying to cram me into that role, being made to feel like there was something wrong with me for not wanting to serve. It certainly didn't make me a better dominant. In fact, it may have impeded my growth.

Lockit -> RE: Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (12/29/2008 2:26:57 PM)
I had someone ask me once, what I would do if he put me over his lap and spanked me. This was before I understood dominance as I do now. I called it independent. I told him I would come up swinging. That pretty much says it all. I do not submit well. I tried once when my son was injured. It was like I better go domme down or destroy someone with the way the hospital was doing things. Nothing sexual... just submitting online/phone to keep me answering to someone so that I ate and could simply just go down, no pressure or whatever, so it wasn't the typical situation. I cannot submit. It just doesn't work! I don't think or feel submissive so even if it was more typical... I still wouldn't respond submissive and reactions would be different.

ResidentSadist -> RE: Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (12/29/2008 2:31:18 PM)
I think the dentist comment covered it. However, as a clinic administrator, I worked ever job in the clinic and even assisted in the OR so I could maximize the efficiency of my policies and procedures. I can only imagine that it helps to some degree if you know how, what and why your subordinate’s relationship partner’s role is executed but it is not required to be a "good" Master/Mistress etc.

JustDarkness -> RE: Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (12/29/2008 2:32:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist I think the dentist comment covered it. However, as a clinic administrator, I worked ever job in the clinic and even assisted in the OR so I could maximize the efficiency of my policies and procedures. I can only imagine that it helps to some degree if you know how, what and why your subordinate’s relationship partner’s role is executed but it is not required to be a "good" Master/Mistress etc. knowledge and preperation is always good. But that can be done from the sides also..indeed.

secretmaster22 -> RE: Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (12/29/2008 2:34:50 PM)
I don't think that is necessarily the case, although I could see the merit for some. I think it might be a good idea to have a sadist beat on you for a bit if you want to be a sadist, because it would help to understand the pain that your sub is going through. Where the good places to hit might be how to hit. That sort of thing.

LaTigresse -> RE: Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (12/29/2008 2:37:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: secretmaster22 I don't think that is necessarily the case, although I could see the merit for some. I think it might be a good idea to have a sadist beat on you for a bit if you want to be a sadist, because it would help to understand the pain that your sub is going through. Where the good places to hit might be how to hit. That sort of thing. The thing is, I didn't "want" to be either a sadist or a dominant. I simply was, before I knew what it was.

susie -> RE: Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (12/29/2008 2:44:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse The thing is, I didn't "want" to be either a sadist or a dominant. I simply was, before I knew what it was. I feel the same. I am a submissive, always have been. It is not something I have learnt and I feel it is that way with Dom's as well.

secretmaster22 -> RE: Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (12/29/2008 4:08:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse quote: ORIGINAL: secretmaster22 I don't think that is necessarily the case, although I could see the merit for some. I think it might be a good idea to have a sadist beat on you for a bit if you want to be a sadist, because it would help to understand the pain that your sub is going through. Where the good places to hit might be how to hit. That sort of thing. The thing is, I didn't "want" to be either a sadist or a dominant. I simply was, before I knew what it was. So are you a sadist with no knowledge of what you are doing? Sounds dangerous to me. If you have knowledge then you understand that it takes more than just being a sadist. I'm only arguing that the knowledge that can be gained from taking a little pain yourself might be helpful in the process. I don't think someone who has no submissive tendencies at all will necessarily gain too much knowledge from being submissive for a time.

Lynnxz -> RE: Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (12/29/2008 4:11:51 PM)
For the people lacking common sense, a little hands on training couldn't hurt. You don't have to be hit with something, to realize that it hurts, and that you should probably not be an idiot with the singletail that just came in the mail.

Phoenixpower -> RE: Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (12/29/2008 4:14:43 PM)
well, if someone would like to experience how it is to receive orders...my flat would need a fair amount of tidying up and cleaning...I do more then welcome anyone who would like to do it for me under my command [8\|]

SylvereApLeanan -> RE: Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (12/29/2008 4:25:43 PM)
Role-playing a submissive will not make me a better dominant. And that's all it would be for me...role-playing. It wouldn't be real because I wouldn't be offering genuine submission. I'd be acting a part for a finite period of time. Pretending to be something I'm not doesn't make me a better anything; except, perhaps, a better actress.

thetammyjo -> RE: Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (12/29/2008 4:28:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lobodomslavery ive heard it said that in order to be a good Mistress, one should be a servant first and work themselves up that way you can sympathise with the servant point of view and empathise with them. is this credible in your opinion, or does it really matter if you have served or not, is this another example of political correctness gone mad or is it only right after all should servants know that those they serve have served others before or does it really matter kevin Some people might be able to learn empathy by going bottom first but frankly not everyone. The best tops I've known have been those who either bottomed first or didn't. What they had in common was a strong sense of self, a firm grip on reality, a lot of empathy, and the humility to know that they cannot ever know everything or be perfect. The worse tops I've ever known have been those that bottomed first and took their experiences and feelings as the only correct feelings and experiences that anyone on the bottom should have. They lacked empathy period and being on the bottom I think only made them more arrogant and less understanding. The key to being the best you that you can be is to do what works best for you. Only experience will tell that and only experimenting may reveal that.

thetammyjo -> RE: Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (12/29/2008 4:33:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: secretmaster22 quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse quote: ORIGINAL: secretmaster22 I don't think that is necessarily the case, although I could see the merit for some. I think it might be a good idea to have a sadist beat on you for a bit if you want to be a sadist, because it would help to understand the pain that your sub is going through. Where the good places to hit might be how to hit. That sort of thing. The thing is, I didn't "want" to be either a sadist or a dominant. I simply was, before I knew what it was. So are you a sadist with no knowledge of what you are doing? Sounds dangerous to me. If you have knowledge then you understand that it takes more than just being a sadist. I'm only arguing that the knowledge that can be gained from taking a little pain yourself might be helpful in the process. I don't think someone who has no submissive tendencies at all will necessarily gain too much knowledge from being submissive for a time. Being on the sub or bottom side never teaches you the techniques of being on the top. How could it since you are experiencing the other side. I apprenticed when I was learning the techniques and beginning my journey as a top/dom. Apprenticing allowed me to learn from the correct position and get honest feedback from someone more experienced. Another comparison that just popped into my head: I think I'm a great professor not because I was a student or even a great student but because I took the time to apprentice to those who were/are great professors and to study the art and science of teaching. Being a student did not prepare me for being a teacher and I know all of you have had terrible teachers so you know what I'm saying.

SlaveIndigochild -> RE: Should a Mistress/Master be a servant boy/girl first (12/29/2008 4:34:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lobodomslavery ive heard it said that in order to be a good Mistress, one should be a servant first and work themselves up that way you can sympathise with the servant point of view and empathise with them. is this credible in your opinion, or does it really matter if you have served or not, is this another example of political correctness gone mad or is it only right after all should servants know that those they serve have served others before or does it really matter kevin there's no 'shoulds'....only that which is consented to within a dynamic.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625