|
NoCalOwner -> RE: On the gift of submission (8/22/2004 2:46:31 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sylverdawn
submission as a gift.. its one of those things that makes me grit my teeth...
A gift is something that is given with no expectation of return.. submission is given with expectations.. You dont give a gift to get a gift...
From Webster's:
1. Anything given; anything voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation; a present; an offering.
2. The act, right, or power of giving or bestowing; as, the office is in the gift of the President.
3. A bribe; anything given to corrupt.
4. Some quality or endowment given to man by God; a pre["e]minent and special talent or aptitude; power; faculty; as, the gift of wit; a gift for speaking.
5. (Law) A voluntary transfer of real or personal property, without any consideration. It can be perfected only by deed, or in case of personal property, by an actual delivery of possession. --Bouvier. Burrill.
Syn: Present; donation; grant; largess; benefaction; boon; bounty; gratuity; endowment; talent; faculty.
Now, realistically speaking, there is almost nothing in human society which is given without expectations. One of my slave's relatives was having problems with debt once, and my slave was pretty worried about it, so I gave that relative $10,000. Did I have expectations? Of course I did. I expected a "thank you," and that, in the future, there would be at least some small gratitude happening, even if it was never expressed in any tangible way. Any time that you give someone a present, especially a large one, there will be expectations -- that they will appreciate the gift or at least the gesture, that they won't waste or abuse the gift, etc. A gift to charity is still considered a gift, even though I expect a tax writeoff as a direct result. Even if I make an anonymous donation to a charity, I have definite expectations about what they will do with the money. When I'm having company over who have given me something, even if I didn't care much for the item, I may well dig it up and use it while they are visiting. I can think of almost no circumstances in which the giving of anything is truly without expectations.
Most of the same considerations which apply to other human relationships also apply to D/s relationships. That $10,000 I gave away was a gift, both in the legal and "common use" sense. There WERE expectations, but they were primarily intangible. I may have given the gift because I appreciated my slave's dedication and loyalty, or I may have done it merely because I wanted her to be happy, but I'll be damned if it was just some sort of payment for services rendered.
In a way, I do agree that neither submission or domination can be a gift, because neither can exist in a vaccuum. Neither can be given without receiving the other. Whether or not that comprises compensation, and disqualifies it as a gift, all depends on the feelings of the parties concerned.
After reaching directoral level in my career, I decided that being management was too much bother to be worth it, and I have routinely declined promotions to management for over a decade. I do not enjoy all aspects of domination, so my domination cannot be bought. My slave wished to submit to me, to sacrifice every bit of her freedom, for as long as we are both alive. Despite my feelings that domination can be a real headache at times, I accepted her submission, in large part because I wanted her to be happy. Some think that because I am her owner, everything which happens in the relationship must be all about ME, that her existence is only for my selfish enjoyment, and that I should never worry about what she's getting out of things. In my opinion, that would make me the irresponsible owner of a doormat, or of a slave who wouldn't be happy for very long. And how dominant would I be if I could not decide about very basic aspects of our relationship, regardless of stereotypes? Or am I being selfish by my refusal to take a more selfish attitude towards things?
It all comes back to the arguments about who is really in charge, the Dom/me or the submissive. If domination is not the performance of a valuable service, why do people pay to be dominated? In 1996, Michael Eisner was paid $12,764 an hour for dominating the Disney Corporation. Obviously somebody considered it to be work, and not something which Eisner would be lucky to do for free, simply because he got off on doing it.
I know my slave to be very selfless, so I can only assume that her motivation in submitting to me qualified her submission as a gift. Knowing that she doesn't have a selfish bone in her body, I accepted ownership with the intention of ordering her to do things which she would enjoy, but which she would never allow herself unless ordered. I do not believe that either of us entered this relationship selfishly, or that we have maintained it selfishly. I think that either side of it could reasonably be considered a gift. I realize that there are submissives out there who have completely abused the "gift" concept, and I can understand the resentment of Dom/mes who have been subjected to such games. But I don't think that regrettable abuses of D/s philosophy by some individuals mean that all D/s relationships are based on want and greed.
Like they say, it's the thought that counts.
|
|
|
|
