Mercnbeth
Posts: 11766
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wisdomtogive quote:
ORIGINAL: happylittlepet quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth When a "sir" isn't serving you in the way, manner, or intensity you required it's appropriate to release him/her. Find someone who will better serve your 'submission'. Hmmm... curious, was this a cleverly worded disagreement with the OP?!! My thought, and it's in black... In these comments there can then be an echo heard 'you are not submissive because you are seeking to be serve'. Not all submissives are slaves. Some submissives have hard limits When they mentioned them to their Dom, the Dom decided it was fine to have it as a hard limit. It isn't about being served, it is about honoring your own submissive. OP 's 'dom' was telling she wasn't submissive because she didn't want to do a hard limit. She is concern if she is or not, and now submissives will question her too? I do hope i am misreading all this, i really do. If i am, and misjudged, i offer my apology now. Didn't notice this before now, I'm happy to clarify. Yes it was Merc posting. I don't put much stock and absolutely give no consideration to titles. Dom, sub, Master, slave, are virtually meaningless outside the context of the relationship they are used, and then only between the individuals involved. As a pragmatist, to me it is very basic. A person setting the rules is the dominant partner in a relationship. A person who responds, or is expected to respond without any further question or consideration to any rule is submitting to that rule. The sensations being given or received are immaterial. On a literal sense, self assigned labels considered, the statement I made "When a "sir" isn't serving you in the way, manner, or intensity you required it's appropriate to release him/her. Find someone who will better serve your 'submission'." describes accurately what was occurring. I didn't think I was obtuse in the reference, nor did I think it insulting. There is nothing wrong, or right, with anyone labeling themselves 'submissive' and still retaining conditional dominance, as was the case here. That rule was breached - end of play - the 'dominant' dismissed. It wasn't good advice, or didn't accurately reflect the nature of the relationship dynamic? There is a mistaken belief that submission and dominance are indicated by the actives observed between the parties. I've never believed that to be true. Observing the dynamic does not determine who is dominant. It sure isn't based on what you call yourself - submissive or dominant. The sensations only indicate 'secondary' proclivity characteristics; they are displays. The display of dominant characteristics is not an indicator of dominance. They do not disclose the primary orientation, anymore than sexual desire for a particular gender is indicated by sex organs. The man submitted (agreed if it sounds better) to rules; those rules were broken, the woman dominated (enforced-better?) the consequence of his disobedience - dismissal. The "....if you loved me", and the 'real' debate - I'll leave to others. Hell, I congratulate anyone out there experiencing whatever sensations they enjoy for being real. Participating and enjoying real life IS real.
|