is it a rarity (Full Version)

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



Message


KnightofMists -> is it a rarity (1/6/2009 6:40:19 PM)

I read this comment in another thread and it struck me as interesting.  I am honestly not sure what to answer on this.  Maybe because I don't interact with other couples relationships so.. I have not frame of referrence except my own relationship which hardly make it right or wrong... but If I had to take a guess... I don't think it is as rare as one might think.  I believe that we often take things for granted of what is already there and that we have all sort of examples in our daily life but they are just normal for the relationship.


So what are your thoughts of the following comment

"I have a feeling that most of us are in relationships with dominants who are more laid back about the whole M/s dynamic, and the dominants who are sticklers for daily dominance displays are more the rarity."




kiwisub12 -> RE: is it a rarity (1/6/2009 6:47:14 PM)

Ohhh   -  interesting.

Speaking for myself, i am in a relationship -24/7 with a dominant that is strict about his protocols and rituals - which certainly aren't onerous. They are the "grounding" (from another thread) rituals we have, and the rest of the time he is pretty laid-back. These are things i do every day because that is the way Sir wants them done - for instance, if he wants coffee, i serve it on a tray, and don't leave until he tells me to go.

It would be hard for me to be 24/7 with someone who insisted on complex and continuous rituals and protocols. I work full-time and have to have some down-time somewhere, and messing on the 'puter, and quilting and reading are my relaxation.  Now - the dungeon time is pure joy, but we can't do that every day *sigh*.




TreasureKY -> RE: is it a rarity (1/6/2009 6:47:37 PM)

I suppose my first thought is, what gauge is being used?  What exactly is a "daily dominance display"?




KnightofMists -> RE: is it a rarity (1/6/2009 6:50:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

I suppose my first thought is, what gauge is being used?  What exactly is a "daily dominance display"?



Your talking about your relationship.... so I would hope you are using your own gauge talking about your relationship.




littlewonder -> RE: is it a rarity (1/6/2009 7:00:27 PM)

Master is strict but we don't really have any rules or protocols. He requires compliance and his dominance is his personality. He makes decisions, he leads and expects for me to simply obey and comply.

I guess you could say we're more informal than formal.





TreasureKY -> RE: is it a rarity (1/6/2009 7:00:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists

Your talking about your relationship.... so I would hope you are using your own gauge talking about your relationship.


Well sure, I can relate to how I consider mine and Firm's relationship, but that hardly addresses whether I consider it rare or not to find "dominants who are sticklers for daily dominance displays".  I agree with you that we probably take more for granted those things that have become ingrained to our relationships and we don't consider them to be overtly "dominant" in display.  Then again, to relate to other relationships one has to have a decent idea of what is being considered decidedly dominant behavior. 

Edited to add:

To directly address the quote, off the cuff I'd have to agree with the author.  I would suspect that a large portion of M/s relationships are far more informal as compared to ones that might exist (or be believed to exist) where there is a consistent and daily routine of high protocol.




sweetnurseBBW -> RE: is it a rarity (1/6/2009 7:06:20 PM)

I guess it depends on that persons definition of M/s and "daily dominance". I can only judge from my own experience and don't think it is rare to me and others I know.




LadyPact -> RE: is it a rarity (1/6/2009 7:18:22 PM)

Might be rare for others.  Still the order of the day in this house.




yourMissTress -> RE: is it a rarity (1/6/2009 7:37:33 PM)

I have to disagree with the quote, as compared to my style and my relationships.  I am very laid back, and to the outsider there may not appear to be a "dominance display".  But that does not mean there are not protocols or rituals being played out right under their noses.  It usually appears to any outsiders that I simply have very attentive and doting partners. 




NuevaVida -> RE: is it a rarity (1/6/2009 7:37:34 PM)

I guess it depends on what the writer means in referring to others' "daily displays of dominance."  From some of the things I read and hear about, I'd say there may be truth to it, but then I really wouldn't know.  The use of the word "sticklers" strikes me as a somewhat negative view, regarding "daily displays of dominance," although I don't know why one would see that as a negative.

It's hard to discuss the sentence because it says so little, without further clarification.


Edited to add:  Having come across the sentence in its context, I think I understand more what the author meant.  The opinion is that it seems most (?) dominants do not place a lot of emphasis on daily behaviors and activities that help a submissive feel and live his/her place, and that doing so would be helpful, at least for some.  In many cases, it seems left up to the submissive to maintain his/her head space, and many struggle as a result.  I now read the quote to mean that many (most?) dominants are either unaware of how they could help with this struggle, or simply do not have the desire to work with their submissives this way.  Perhaps the author of the quote will clarify. 




Padriag -> RE: is it a rarity (1/6/2009 8:24:21 PM)

FR

Just an observation, rather than worrying about what "gauge" is used... which will be subjective no matter what, instead perhaps describe examples from your own life, frequency, etc... and let each reader draw their own conclusions. 




KurtKaboom -> RE: is it a rarity (1/6/2009 9:22:14 PM)

      A high level of protical is vital to the Master - slave dynamic, but some days it is better to just let that stuff slide a little.




LuckyAlbatross -> RE: is it a rarity (1/6/2009 9:23:07 PM)

It really depends on what level you're talking about.  I require a certain number of types of soups and cokes and ice and straws in my water- but that's not about displays of dominance, it's about getting what I want how I want it and you are the submissive and thus you will take care of that for me.

But I'm extremely laid back about most things and don't put much effort or import on symbols or specific expressions of self. 

I would agree that doms who are sticklers for specific displays are more in the rarity because displays are often only relevant and noticed by those to which they have meaning and because in a practical sense that's not what's ultimately important in most relationships. 




chiaThePet -> RE: is it a rarity (1/6/2009 10:40:00 PM)

 
Assuming there exists a definite and defining definition which is unique to
the particular M/s or D/s relationship in observance, it still holds true
more often than not, that whilst protocols may ultimately rule with iron
intent, the dynamic and all it embraces pretty much flies right out the
window when his foreskin becomes entangled within the teeth of his fly.

chia* (the pet)




Padriag -> RE: is it a rarity (1/6/2009 10:43:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

It really depends on what level you're talking about.  I require a certain number of types of soups and cokes and ice and straws in my water- but that's not about displays of dominance, it's about getting what I want how I want it and you are the submissive and thus you will take care of that for me.

The intention may not be to display dominance... but in effect, is that not exactly what your example is?  Taking dominance and the act of dominating literally... it is the imposition of one's will over another.  Requring someone to get you want, how you want it, when you want it... even in something as simple as a drink or food... is an act of dominance.  Perhaps not in the stereotypical sense (perhaps mythical or at least idealized and fantasized sense), but it is none-the-less still an act of dominance of one over another.  Personally, I think such is often under appreciated.




Aszhrae -> RE: is it a rarity (1/6/2009 11:41:59 PM)

quote:

I have a feeling that most of us are in relationships with dominants who are more laid back about the whole M/s dynamic, and the dominants who are sticklers for daily dominance displays are more the rarity.


Very much the rarity.
The whole commitment of self in one's own entirety does not seem to be something dominants want nowadays.
Doesn't seem to be about having someone care for anyone 24/7.
What ever happened to having routines? You complete your routine, then you have time to be able to do other things. You do something incorrectly or forget your place, you get punished. Do something right and you are rewarded. You improve in doing something even better than you did before. You get to cuddle or you get a choice next time in a session what you would like the dominant to do to you.
M/s of the quality that are being referred too are hard to find.




TigerNINTails -> RE: is it a rarity (1/6/2009 11:55:08 PM)

I agree. I do notice that regardless of "lay back", there isn't really a lack of requirement in many situations in an M/s relationship. Under normal circumstances, there could be some confusion as to what constitutes an M/s relationship in the first place, but that's also another subject altogether.

But also, it's hard to say what's normal circumstances. Everyone's "normality" is different to most other's normality. We do have some consistency across the board with that here and there, but that in and of itself is rather inconsistent, lol. What I consider normal is often looked upon as extreme, and sometimes, as light. I find it necessary to engage in protocol oriented behaviour, both in my interaction and speech with my girls and in their address in return, as well as how they bring food, drink, how they sit, where they sit, how they approach me, eye position, presentation and even their general attitude.

Even with flex periods and relaxation, it's entirely possible to maintain the protocols of the relationship at all times, you simply suit the protocols required to the activity being undertaken.

I am typically very laid back, allowing the cards to lay where they lay, allowing a modicum of freedom of speech and movement and banter around me, as I'm into having conversations, and find it a waste if my slaves are totally silent and/or still, unless it's specifically required for whatever reason I concoct at the moment. For example, you don't require them to kneel with their thighs spread, when they're factually trying to answer e-mails, and need to use a computer chair.

I mean, it doesn't matter where we are really, the one consistency that we have is address protocol. I might be a stickler, according to the quote, but I don't believe that it's particularly a "display of dominance", it's just a behavioural guide and requirement of self discipline, no different than one in the military referring to a commanding officer as "Sir" or "Ma`am" when addressing them for whatever reason.

As someone else pointed out, it's very much the grounding of the relationship, and does assist the girls in maintaining their headspace, to the point that if I told them to suddenly stop being the way they've been over the past few years, they couldn't if they wanted to. It's ingrained, and "normal", and therefore, the relationship can be more laid back, because I'm not all over them correcting inconsistencies to the way I like them to interact and address with me and O'others in the M/s dynamic. Most of the time, I barely notice that she's referring to me in that way, though I hear it, it's normal. If I don't hear it, it stands out like a sore thumb.

So am I a stickler? Abso-fuckin-lutely. Control freak? Not so much. I hate micromanaging anyone. An Owner? Yes, I am M/s, and strictly. It's through the grounding of the protocols in the relationship, that the D/s dynamic emerges, in my relationship, so I'm strict about the protocols, and certain rituals, but that is to the benefit of keeping headspace for the slaves, even in our most laid-back moments.

So would I consider it rare? Meh... I guess maybe... I keep being surprised by people that find my IRC channel refreshing to come into, because most other channels are NOT strict or stringent with the protocols that I am strict with.

I think that it seems laid back, when you get used to it enough. Most of the time, the protocols just happen to be applied, even in the middle of normal conversation on the telephone or whatever.




SailingBum -> RE: is it a rarity (1/6/2009 11:56:32 PM)

Dunno about formality.  She does what she is told and that is what I require.  Nor do I have to tell her twice.  I have no idea how "rare" that is.

BadOne




Maxwell67 -> RE: is it a rarity (1/6/2009 11:58:28 PM)

*FR*
Protocols exist for a good reason.  They help to maintain disciplined dealings with other M/s or D/s folk.  Proper observance preserves the niceties in a world where we take the status of our own egos very seriously.  I'm working toward a high level of ritualized discipline, but I am not shaming mine for forgetting once in a while just yet.  I know when we are in situations where that behavior is needed they will do these things without even thinking about it.  When there is social tension in our interactions, then the rituals need to be exercised, and when there isn't, not.  Right now I am working on other things so I keep mine at ease most of the time. 

I think the reason I am more lax at some times than others depends on how much public exposure we are anticipating in the near future.   I think perhaps I would enjoy having a little extra flair in general though. I understand fully that 'displays of discipline' can be a fun way to present ones household.  There is nothing wrong with having a little unique style and some showmanship and taking pride in it. So I am sure that when I start integrating more at munches and such I will be much more strict about those observances, and that mine will appreciate the need for it when I do.




JustDarkness -> RE: is it a rarity (1/7/2009 12:29:22 AM)

Could some one please explain me what the word "stickler" means .




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875