LadiesBladewing
Posts: 944
Joined: 8/31/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BitaTruble If I knew up front, that no matter what sort of service I provided, it was not going to be good enough to be kept, I would not allow myself to get into a situation that has no where to go. I would be willing to bottom and retain my own power, however. I would be willing to submit for a temporary period of time, but I could not be enslaved with the knowledge in my head that it could never last. Celeste Why is there the implication that the contract would end because the individual in question "wasn't good enough"? We often take servants on a limited contract, because they want to learn, and we want to teach, but both parties know that there are other things going on in our lives that mean that, after a given amount of time, the contract will end. It has nothing to do with being "good enough"... we haven't had a servant yet who was dedicated to his or her service that wasn't "good enough". [This next section doesn't deal with Celeste's post, but with what I've read up until this point on this thread, and on other similar discussions over the years.] This may peeve some people for me to say, but the other issue that I see creeping up here is the whole idea that this is some kind of romantic endeavor, and in order to be "real" there has to be that romantic "happily ever after" thing. M/s can exist with or without romance, and it can exist for both short-term and long-term relationships. It can exist, and exist strongly, anywhere that the submissive respects the owner and obeys him or her, and it can exist anywhere that the owner is dedicated to training, guiding, and commanding a servant and is honorable enough to warrant obedience and respect. Romance is a whole 'nother bag of worms, and has nothing to do with whether a relationship is M/s or not -- in fact, I've seen plenty of relationships that called themselves M/s, but the individuals involved would never survive under the training that we provide, because, in our eyes, the owner made no effort to guide, direct, train, or command his or her servant... in particular because he or she didn't want to bear the brunt of being "disliked" by his or her romantic partner... and the servant walked all over the dominant, because the servant wasn't a "slave", he or she was a mate/spouse/lover. I've seen a lot more successful short-term training enslavements than I've seen romantic enslavements. M/s is M/s... it isn't romance. Romance is romance. It may include M/s or not, but it takes a strong owner and a truly dedicated servant to not get lost in the romance and maintain the M/s portion of the relationship. I've seen a few folks who have made it work... but for most... *shrugs* Lady Zephyr
_____________________________
"Should have", "could have", "would have" and "can't" may be the most dangerous phrases in the English language. Bladewing Enclave
|