|
CaringandReal -> RE: consideration? (1/21/2011 5:23:22 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Buzzzz
The "under consideration" is a bunch of bull.. One way to take a submissive out of the market , like someone says... Another way to control (imo, the wrong way)
What is wrong with taking someone out of the market? Wasn't that the whole idea in high school when young couples announced they were going steady? To me, "under consideration" means that the person with the most power is quite interested in the person with lesser power, enough to want to exclusively get to know them without the less powerful person running all over the board and "getting to know" other dominants at the same time (aka playing the field). If the submissive isn't at a place where she agrees that a more exclusive "getting to know you" phase would be a good thing, all she has to do is refuse to be "placed under consideration" and go back to flitting around from dominant to dominant, until she finds a better fit, one who does make her want to be exclusive. She loses the attention of that single dominant, but since she wasn't willing to give anything to retain it, she clearly didn't value it very highly, so what's the big deal? It seems only fair and right that a dominant would want someone they were examining for appropriateness to be focused exclusively on them: that allows for a close, detailed examination, which often includes exercises in obedience, devotion, and the testing of other long-term traits. If a submissive is serving ten (or even three or even one) other dominants besides you, how can she perform well in such exercises? When two teens went steady, there was no understanding or commitment to marriage. It simply meant, "I like you so very much that that I want to be romantic with you, and only you, at this time." That is how I see "under consideration."
(As a personal aside, this question of "under consideration" never seems to arise between myself and a dominant becuase my mind doesn't work in any other way. If I become interested in someone, I become _very_ interested in them, and the thought of exploring submission with other dominants at the same time seems anathma to me. Impossible to do. I tell somebody that I am intensely interested in them early on--maybe that's why nobody's ever bothered to declare me "under consideration." That sort of thing is a complete given with me. It doesn't need to be declared.)
I also disagree about it being a wrong way to control, but I do agree that an "under consideration" state is a form control. A lot of what dominants like to do, particularly potential masters, is control the environments of their slaves or subs, control their inputs and outputs. One of the mildest and lightest forms such control can take (and thus a good way to test the constancy of a submissive whose "flakiness level" you are uncertain of because you do not know him or her very well) is to set this small rule over their relationship inputs: feel free talk to anyone you like, enjoy your friendships, but submit only to my will. If you want to determine whether someone is capable of submitting only to your will (and not also to others) how else do you expect to determine this except by ordering them to do so and then seeing what happens? Are you supposed to take a stranger you've met over the Internet at their word about something this important to you? If so please send $10,000 to my Paypal acount. I swear on a stack of bibles I'll repay you next week. See, I am a submissive and you have my word. That's enough...isn't it? :)
And why should a state of "under consideration" mean "...therefore I promise to be your master forever" if you have no idea whatsoever yet if this person is capable of serving you the way you want or need in the long term. Once you have an answer to that question, it makes sense to move on to something a bit more permanent, but until you do, it seems extremely foolish to me for either party to prematurely commit. If the very best (most accurate) way of discovering whether a submissive can so serve is by exploring their abilities in an exclusive although tentative arrangement, then where is the logic in refraining to do so?
I realize fully that the "under consideration" is abused in ridiculous ways and used to mask other dynamics, but rather than be up in arms about the concept as a result, I am up in arms about the half-witted, flakey insincere people that you find on both sides of the power continuum who abuse and misuse all power-exchange concepts, make them all look bad. The concept of "under consideration" is itself is sound, if practiced with awareness and intelligence.
|
|
|
|
