Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive

Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

draxxe -> Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (9/10/2004 6:00:50 PM)
Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive,,, This is a current topic we have in the chat room in Old Guard and wanted to share it with you! I personnely say yes so bring on the bashing and after you do I will tell you why! Draxxe

proudsub -> RE: Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (9/10/2004 7:26:36 PM)
quote: Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive,,, If the Dominant didn't meet the submissive's needs i doubt the sub would stick around, so in that sense he/she serves the sub.

NoCalOwner -> RE: Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (9/10/2004 7:29:28 PM)
I doubt that you will be surprised to hear me say this, Draxxe, but I agree completely. Sign me up for the flamebait list too.

angelthighhighs -> RE: Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (9/10/2004 8:14:33 PM)
it is my opinion that we serve each other just in different roles and in different ways. as someone else said, it is the responsibility of the Dominant to also meet the subs needs, if they're not met chances are they either will not do their best or will soon leave.

LordODiscipline -> RE: Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (9/10/2004 8:46:36 PM)
This is one of those sophist twists of logic that makes absolutely no sense and negates the entire premise of a power exchange/domination relationship. Copntrary and popular among those who enjoy word play, it is a relative paradigm of thought in order to provoke reponse without logical reference, mature and intelligent repose, or consideration. Just my opinion. ~J quote: ORIGINAL: draxxe Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive,,, This is a current topic we have in the chat room in Old Guard and wanted to share it with you! I personnely say yes so bring on the bashing and after you do I will tell you why! Draxxe

ShrewWhisperer -> RE: Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (9/11/2004 3:47:48 AM)
Splitting hairs here for a second...wouldn't want to be a sophist... I'm not sure serve is the right word....a sea-captain doesn't serve the crew...but it's his ass if he screws up. I've always held the reason you get so many alpha types who are subs is because the entire scene is built around what THEY want...now they may be doing the work but the dom/me has taken the time to figger out where their kink/joy is and set the scene to please them. so it's about work load...if thinking is really hard for you, then being a sub is a good gig...if having to fetching your own ice-tea is too much trouble, you might be a dom...foxworthy is missing an entire new schtick...

stormiKnightBEAR -> RE: Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (9/11/2004 7:24:39 AM)
To some extent *both* are in serving roles. If a sub/slave can not meet the Dom/Master needs, he/she will be replaced. By the same token if a Dom/Master does not or won't meet the needs of a sub/slave they can/sometimes do walk away. Needs are part of being human, if they aren't being met then humans tend to seek satisfaction else where. Question here becomes, why do some Dom/Masters think themselves above meeting the needs of the one that gives them pleasure? Is it because they think they have feet that are not made of clay, or because they simply do not give a fig about a person who is willing to give up everything to be what it takes to satisfy them? This is a behavior that is not a secret to anyone, it strikes all walks of life, vanilla, bdsm, Leather, Old Guard, etc.. It's something that has been witnessed time and time again and yet those same Dom/Masters will say "What??? I'm supposed to give something back??"... wake up, if you want to keep a good thing around you have to work at it as well. The next question is "How many of you whether Dom/Master, sub/slave have walked away from this type of situation?" Enquiring Minds Wanna know..... Or maybe it's something you need to ask yourself but be honest when you answer. If the answer is no... then it might be a relationshp that needs a closer look. [:)] The one thing that can be said is this, finding out you do not meet or have the ability no matter how hard you try to meet the needs of your partner is never easy or good. There are various degrees of how that makes you feel, defeated or a failure, just to name a few. And you can believe this if nothing else. There is nothing in the world than the deep rooted feeling of failure to meet your Master/Doms needs. That is after all what most sub/slaves believe they were put here on earth to do, to fail at that... is a defeat that is very hard to deal with. Most of that comes from within ones self, but failure of satisfaction is something that most sub/slaves are not ready to deal with. Thanks for the question..... it's really a good topic. Atleast that is what this girl thinks.... thanks for allowing her to put her 25 cents in. stormi property of Master Bear

WayHome -> RE: Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (9/11/2004 10:07:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShrewWhisperer I'm not sure serve is the right word....a sea-captain doesn't serve the crew...but it's his ass if he screws up. Who says a sea captain doesn't serve his crew? I have two uncles and a grandfather that have been sea captains and they all served their crews. They served as leaders. You're right though that being a Dom is a lot like being a sea captain. I just think that "serve" is a perfectly reasonable word for it. Speaking of "his ass if..." I have one uncle who had a very profound example of this. The captain is responsible for his crew and their actions---no excuses. So my uncle became CO of a certain ship back in the days of a different Gulf, and 48 hours later one of his crewmen sank an allied Chinese boat with one of his missiles. It was "his ass". Of course he had never even met those crewmen and had only been on the ship a total of less than 12 hours at the time. He had nothing to do directly with the decision to fire and hadn't yet had a chance to mold the crew or the work environment at all. The protocols were still those of the previous captain (it's a very big ship) It was obviously a case of "technicality" in the minds of most of us civilians, but he never once made an excuse. In the Navy, you are always responsible for those under you. That was something I had to think about a lot at the time and I think it has influenced how I approach BDSM as well. I'm sure someone somewhere probably put some of the credit on the old CO or on the XO rather than my uncle, but that's not how it read officially or publicly, or in my uncle's mind. Leto

LordODiscipline -> RE: Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (9/11/2004 3:57:16 PM)
"Question here becomes, why do some Dom/Masters think themselves above meeting the needs of the one that gives them pleasure?" Why not....? Somehow it is become a paradigm to some folks that people might accept this as their desires and manifest it through an actuality. If this is a demonstrative relational value that has meaning and efficacy for the individuals involved - why is it to be condemned as laziness, sloth, or simply a perversity that is not acceptable? Of course the lose definition of "meeting someone's needs" is certainly subjective and would not be 'my definition' should you chose to expound on it - and, I am certain this would be another of those things that would confuse and divide us through some war of definitions (re: Slave/Submissive debate) - but, the fact is -based on your stated raomatnic notion of mutuality, I would probably not meet your 'acceptable' and (apparently) requisite level of "doing"... C'est le guerre.... God knows I am not the romantic many people on line feel that a BDSM dominant in a relationship should be.... and I thank him for that. After all, I am not in an alternative (read: perverted) relationship that makes me a pariah to 99.9% of the 'pure population' because I care about what others may think of me. ~J

LordODiscipline -> RE: Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (9/11/2004 4:11:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WayHome Who says a sea captain doesn't serve his crew? I do actually - the captain of a ship serves a nation, not the crew... everything is under his perview and is his responsibility - there is a saying in the Navy -"You can deligate authority, but never responsibility" The captain is responsible for everything that happens, but is not responsible to the crew - only the nation and his mission. Hence the ability to order the crew do things that might get them killed; otherwise - he would not do so. Just another thought. ~J

lilninotchka -> RE: Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (9/11/2004 4:37:18 PM)
If you would, please expound upon your reasons? draxxe too, please? Personally, i am in agreement with LordODiscipline on this one - to each their own basically, but i would like to hear your reasons for your opinion/way of thinking.

NoCalOwner -> RE: Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (9/11/2004 9:25:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lilninotchka If you would, please expound upon your reasons? ... Personally, i am in agreement with LordODiscipline on this one - to each their own basically, but i would like to hear your reasons for your opinion/way of thinking. No problem. If you look up "service," you will find definitions along the lines of doing something of worth, or improving someone's welfare. A silverback gorilla performs a service for his group. Those who politically rule us we call public servants. The generals of our armies are performing military service. And a skilled corporate CEO is serving the board, shareholders and employees by leading well. Domination is a service, unless it is done worthlessly, or harmfully. Their submissives would not have submitted to them if it did not fullfill a need of theirs. If you like word games, though, many Doms also service their subs/slaves in other ways. See the definition of "service" relating to copulating with a female.

Sinergy -> RE: Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (9/11/2004 9:32:05 PM)
quote: If you would, please expound upon your reasons? draxxe too, please? Personally, i am in agreement with LordODiscipline on this one - to each their own basically, but i would like to hear your reasons for your opinion/way of thinking. Hello, Fair enough. I personally think that a D/s relationship is like any other relationship; the members of the relationship all get something they need from it. Serve is somewhat of a buzz-word, and I suspect using that word you will get some percentage of those on the Dominant side of the room arguing. All parts of the equation get what they need from it, imho. Sinergy

lilninotchka -> RE: Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (9/11/2004 11:18:56 PM)
i see your - and NoCal's - points...i suppose i was thinking of 'serve' differently. When you apply a definition such as the one in the dictionary, though...lol i would think that any relationship that did not meet the needs of all those involved would not be a relationship for long anyway...and thanks for sharing. :)

sweetpleaser -> RE: Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (9/12/2004 9:30:33 AM)
I agree on this as well, if both partners did not receive satisfaction one would end up leaving. It's a give and take partnership. There have been so many threads on the gift of submission, etc. and I believe both parties receive the gift of being happy through satisfaction. JMO ann PS: Where have you been Sinergy? Good to see your posts again.

stormiKnightBEAR -> RE: Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (9/12/2004 1:33:58 PM)
Sir, This girl knows that above everything else in her case atleast, Master will do what is right for HIM. It just happens that He does care for this girl and her needs, BUT they are all met within HIS timeframe and availability not this girl's. ([:)] tho... sometimes this girl wants ... whatever to happen right now.... LOL.. stomping foot and giggling at Master. Who btw, knows... that even when it's frustrating this girl does wait for it to happen. Everyone no matter what path they have chosen deserves to walk a path that is right for them. It does not change how things are done or how things will be done. Everyone is entitled to that freedom. It was merely a question from this girl's point, as she would not be slave to anyone that couldn't or wouldn't or flat out refused to meet the needs that drive this girl to serve. But then again what the hell does this girl know........ enquiring minds wanna know... Thank You, stormi property of Master Bear

Mercnbeth -> RE: Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (9/13/2004 11:50:44 AM)
Draxxe - A Dominant may serve a sub in a sort of symbiotic relationship. Each party gets something they need from the other. However a Master does NOT serve a slave. To make that leap requires total commitment, and any serving that may have been done when the relationship was at the Dom/sub level now must be replaced by TRUST. Trust from the slave that the Master will consider his/her needs and wants while satisfying his/her own. The slave is owned property, there to be of service, not to serve. Merc.

stormiKnightBEAR -> RE: Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (9/13/2004 12:05:58 PM)
Hats off to you Sir!!! Well said!!!! Thank You, stormi property of Master Bear

Thanatosian -> RE: Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (9/14/2004 9:32:38 AM)
What he said if you think about it, who really has the 'power' in a Dom/sub relationship? the sub - counterintuitive, I know, but the sub is the one who makes the choice to submit, and can countermand that decision at any time, ending the Dom/sub relationship right then and there ( or at least that particular facet of the relationship ) the above does not apply in a Owner/slave relationship since, going with my definition of slave, the slave only has one right - to demand release - every other right has been given to the Owner - which is where the trust issue comes in just my tuppence, prolly clear as mud

NoCalOwner -> RE: Does a Dominant Serve a Submissive (9/14/2004 5:19:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Draxxe - A Dominant may serve a sub in a sort of symbiotic relationship. Each party gets something they need from the other. However a Master does NOT serve a slave. To make that leap requires total commitment, and any serving that may have been done when the relationship was at the Dom/sub level now must be replaced by TRUST. Trust from the slave that the Master will consider his/her needs and wants while satisfying his/her own. The slave is owned property, there to be of service, not to serve. Webster's Dictionary, "serve" -- 6a : to furnish or supply with something needed or desired. 12 : to provide services that benefit or help Webster's, "service," -- 2C : contribution to the welfare of others My slave gets housing, clothing and food from me. Because I am giving her things which she needs, because I am contributing to her welfare, Webster's says that those things are services. It says nothing about my intent in doing so, about whether she has any right to expect those things, or anything else. Until such a time as I take away her clothes, throw her out of the house and tell her to go dumpster dive for food, the dictionary says that I am providing service. So while I agree that being an owner does not necessarily entail providing any service, realistically, how many do not? Even prisoners in forced labor death camps are given housing, a ragged uniform and an occasional scrap of food.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.222656E-02