starymists
Posts: 139
Joined: 2/1/2006 Status: offline
|
Is it possible for a Dominant to fail a submissive or a Master to fail a slave? Sure. First of all, none of us are perfect. For myself, I tend to look to see if it is an intentional or unintentional failure. Webster defines failure as follows: 1 a : omission of occurrence or performance; specifically : a failing to perform a duty or expected action b : a state of inability to perform a normal function c : a fracturing or giving way under stress <structural failure> 2 a : lack of success 3 a : a falling short b : DETERIORATION, DECAY For the first definition, an omission, failing to perform a duty or expected action. Why didn't he complete what he said he was going to do? Did something happen outside of his control? Like, for instance, promising that he was going to call at a certain time but then ended up having to work? Or is it promising to do something and not caring enough to get it done? like, for instance, promising he was going to call at a certain time, and then getting caught up in a tv show and just blowing off the comitment? Or is it a miscommunication. For instance, him promising to call sometime this evening, and her assuming she knew what time he would be calling, only to get hurt when he didnt call at the expected time? The second definition, promising to do something he knew he couldn't complete. Promising to come over knowing the car was broke, but assuming he would have another way to get there, which is unintentional. Promising to be there knowing the car was broke and not bothering to even try to find another way to get there, which is intentional. Or I'll get there if I can being taken as a guarantee that he will be there followed by disappointment when he doesn't show, which is expectation management and communication. The last definition...falling short and deteroriation, from where I stand, speaks to the second part of what you asked about...knowing that hurt is being caused and doing nothing to address that hurt. In some cases, this could be an attempt to teach the submissive something specific. In other cases, it could be a lack of concern for her well being. And it could be that he is concerned, and trying to find ways of addressing the problem, but not wanting to bring her the situation until he has a solution. In all three cases, there is unintentional, intentional and other things like lack of communication. Only the Dominant and submissive involved can really begin to understand what is happening and why. For myself, I have a three strike rule that I live by. I will bring an issue to the table for discussion exactly three times. And the third time, I will say, 'I don't want to nag you. This is where I am at and this is the last time I bring this issue to the table unless you bring it up first.' If the situation still doesn't change, I have two choices...I can learn to accept things as they stand or I can choose to get out of the relationship and find something that fits me better. And those decisions, for me, take a while to find the answers too sometimes. If it's something I need to remain happy in the relationship, I get out because I can't change what I need *like air and water is to survival*. If it is something I would like, or something that I just want, then I have to decide how important it is to me to have that aspect present in a relationship. As my Dominant can tell you, consistency is something I need. My Dominant, in understanding that I really get nuts around inconsistency, is very careful to only promise that which he is sure he can provide. And still, on occasion, life happens. But his not doing something is rare. If he's not absolutely sure, he'll say, no promises, but I'll try. As far as being accused from topping from the bottom, not being submissive enough or being too needy...those are all relative terms. They are relative to the needs of the Dominant who is involved. What is needy to one is an acceptable level of submission to another. So those kind of comments should be taken with a grain of salt.
|