lovingpet
Posts: 4270
Joined: 6/19/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika Not everyone does WIITWD the same way. Contrary to what some people believe (and you'll see examples on this thread) D/s or M/s isn't all about the dominant party. It is about both. So here are my answers to your questions, knowing full well that someone else will disagree. The bottom line is that you have to figure out what kind of dynamic you want and he has to figure out what kind of dynamic he wants and you have to determine if there is enough in common for you both to feel fulfilled. quote:
This has me thinking. How can both people's needs in this aspect be met? Through communication. You learned that because when you communicated with him, you were able to express your needs. quote:
How can he just blatantly claim me with little or no input on my part? He can only do that if you allow him to. You are a free woman to chose the dominant partner of your choice. If it important for you to be with one who gets your input, then you have to make sure that this is what you have. quote:
How can I give him the assurances of accepting my place when I don't want to have that choice? See the answer above. Are you happy in this dynamic? quote:
How can these two perspectives coexist within a relationship? I think where a lot of people get it wrong is by blocking two-way communication. When I'm with a man, I want to know how he feels, what he desires and what he needs. Only then can I make the best decisions for us both. Will he get everything he wants? Probably not and usually they like that in a way. But so far, I haven't had a partner who's felt short changed or on the flip side who felt I was too lenient. quote:
I will eventually reach a place where I can say what we both already know to be true. At the same time, if it is already true, then I don't understand the why of it being so important that I do in the first place. It is important that I do only because it is important to him, so far as I see it and that is why I will strive to be able to. Is there more to it than what I'm seeing? This part I have to admit I didn't understand. Could you clarify? - LA To first start with the point of clarification. If he knows that I am his slave regardless of my ability to articulate that, does it matter if I ever do? It does to him apparently. That is what I was getting at. I'm sorry if it confused anybody. We are both greatly fulfilled within our dynamic. We are because we make a special effort to see to it that each person's needs are, in fact, fulfilled. Needs are pretty well non negotiable. How those needs are met has a bit more latitude, especially how he chooses to meet my needs or teaches me even to not have that need anymore. Communication has always been good for us. What I am seeing in this particular instance is a bit of a difference in approach that seems to clash. I am wondering if I am viewing something in the wrong way or perhaps overlooking something. We will work through this the same as always, but I just thought it was a good topic of discussion. This really isn't about a collar or not a collar. It isn't about fulfilling a submissive/slave's request or not. It is about the origin of ownership itself. Does it come from me and my saying that yes, he does have that control and authority over my life and that I belong to him? Or does it come from him and his saying that he chooses me and to take up, for himself, the control and authority over my life and that I belong to him? Maybe it is a nitpicky, fine difference, but it seems significant to my mind and is, as I view it, the conflict of perspective we are experiencing. Maybe I muddled it with talk of a temporary collar and the backstory. This could have come up in contexts not involving a collar, but rather just discussions of what ownership would mean (and it has in the past, so not the first time I have looked at this). Keep in mind, it was clear to us both that I was wearing it for the evening and not a lifetime. There were no surprises, no power struggle over it, no hurt feelings or conflict about it. I knew it was most likely temporary, though he was free to correct me of course if I was wrong about that. He never gave any promises of forever when he put it on. He also did not think I had done something wrong and thusly removed it. It was for a play session and it was understood by us both. I am not sure why there is this idea that I was stomping feet and demanding a collar only for him to give in, then change his mind, and on and on. There was no such thing. I explained my concerns about that particular situation and he, apparently, agreed. Like I said before, he could have just as easily said no and I would have had to deal with that as well. I had no expectations. He gave me no answer in advance of that night. He simply did what he decided he wanted to do. I hope that clarifies more for various other posters. I can ask for anything. I can even be persistent if it is important enough to me to do so. I can also expect him to answer as he pleases and for there to be consequences if he was displeased with my behavior. There is also not a bit wrong with agreeing in a matter and doing what is best, even if that happens to be what subbie/slave wants. It can be seen as pure coincidence perhaps. Sometimes, the girl's just got a valid point. It makes sense to do something that is right and good for everyone involved and I don't think that changes based on whose mouth happens to utter it. lovingpet
_____________________________
If you put your head into more, you'd have to put your back into less. ~Me 10 Fluffy pts.
|