Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 9:45:14 AM   
Padriag


Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RavenMuse

I was looking at that element in isolation having noticed it was somewhat a contradiction, sort of the counter argument to the "Its all about the Dom" view.

As I state at the end there, IMO when you look at the big picture, it is about BOTH

That's the problem with looking at anything in isolation, you tend to lose perspective.  A dominant who took that earlier view might well lose control and end up being a "service Top."  But going to the other extreme a dominant who focuses totally on themselves again risks losing perspective and becoming an self-centered asshole.  Either can put the relationship in jeopardy.  So its about balance.

While yes, the submissive is there to serve, to please, to be useful, to make the dominant's life more comfortable and easier (a submissive who fails to do this is not likely to be kept long); the dominant must maintain the balance and ensure that the submissive's needs for security, structure, safety, affection, etc. are also met.

Likewise, the submissive has a responsibility to the dominant to do their best at serving, pleasing, being useful, etc.; but also a responsibility for their own health, safety and welfare.  If they find themselves in an abusive relationship, they have a responsibility to get out.  And likewise if they are failing as a submissive they will have to accept responsibility for the consequences of that failure (possibly loss of the relationship).

Each has their role in the relationship, each has responisibilities... and there ain't no free ride.

_____________________________

Padriag

A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer

(in reply to RavenMuse)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 9:57:29 AM   
piscess


Posts: 101
Joined: 5/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RavenMuse

quote:

ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash
In principle I have to agree with you Raven...but then again, it's a bit like which came first, the chicken or the egg? If we didn't require service, then they would have no outlet...plus the Dominant can allow service or not, so it's still the Dominant controlling the environment. But yes, it's mutually fulfilling, so I don't know that it's always about either, it's about all involved.


I was looking at that element in isolation having noticed it was somewhat a contradiction, sort of the counter argument to the "Its all about the Dom" view.

As I state at the end there, IMO when you look at the big picture, it is about BOTH



It is an equal exchange of needs and desires.  One needing to control, the other needing to submit.  One without the other is ....well a cake without icing?
 
piscess

(in reply to RavenMuse)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 10:05:45 AM   
losttreasure


Posts: 875
Joined: 12/17/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Obviously I'm upsetting many people's views of the world, not that that bothers me. I think my main point was that the terms dom and sub are misnomers and that people are really indulging in a very equal relationship. Both partners in the relationship are fastened to the leash and it is pretty irrelevent who is being led and who is leading.


Meatcleaver... believe it or not, I do understand where you are coming from, and to a point, I agree that it is a very practical and sensible approach. 

It's clear to me that the you recognize that men and women generally do approach relationships from different aspects... there's nothing wrong with admitting that and refusing to pretend otherwise.  It's also perfectly valid to accept that fantasy and reality don't often resemble each other in this lifestyle, and to declare an unwillingness to masquerade as if they do.  However, I'm wondering if you aren't taking your pragmatic stance to an extreme; an "all or nothing" standpoint.

While it is true that the "absolute control" and solipsistic existence so coveted by many dominants can be realistically thought of as fantasy, one need not overlook that there can still be a strongly defined leader/follower dynamic.  As CrappyDom so eloquently described, that psychological force can produce results far exceeding most fantasies.

Perhaps we'd all do well to remember that we get out of life what we are willing to put into it. 

< Message edited by losttreasure -- 5/21/2006 10:11:25 AM >

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 10:22:21 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		Yeah, but the symbol you're talking about is originally Confucian...  What's the oldest example of it that you know?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

I identify very strongly with the Asian philosophy of Taoism.  This came about as somewhat of a response to Confucianism's rigid heirarchy.

The symbol of The Tao, or what westerners call the Yin/Yang symbol, appear to be ocean waves, one light, one dark, crashing against each other.  Each wave has an eye.  The eye is the essence of what makes up it's complement.  What is curious about westerner's insistence on calling it the Yin/Yang symbol is that the Tao (loosely translates into The Way) is actually the circle, dynamic, or principle surrounding the Yin and the Yang.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 11:57:16 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		People write differently to the way they talk or at least I do. I concentrate on the issue being discussed if I am making a serious post or at least I try to.

My lover, the mother of my youngest daughter flies a long way several times a year to spend time with me and I to her. I guess if I came across to her as being so jaundiced she wouldn't bother.

I tell her how I see it and she tells me. We don't find that being straight interfers or detracts from our relationship, though maybe it being part time helps.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 5/21/2006 11:58:02 AM >

(in reply to losttreasure)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 12:22:49 PM   
amayos


Posts: 1553
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: New England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RavenMuse

OK so Subs have a need to serve, yes, to focus on the needs of their Dom, to bring pleasure to their Master, make his life easier in any way they can.

But it is a need of theirs, fullfilling it makes THEM happy, so doesn't that make it "About" the sub?



It makes it essentially a symbiosis of the two, balanced or unbalanced. If it was "about" only one, there would be only one to speak of. If two, it is unavoidably a tale of two—even in the most severe form of servitude where the slave's needs or desires are not ever considered; it is still two lines of human experience running in whatever form of parallel.

I believe where the confusion lies is in the age-old debate of who is "really in control". The answer to this question varies among different individuals and relations.



(in reply to RavenMuse)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 12:27:35 PM   
puella


Posts: 2457
Joined: 12/2/2004
Status: offline 		Stealing my posts now are ya?  ;)

(in reply to amayos)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 12:45:02 PM   
amayos


Posts: 1553
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: New England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: puella

Stealing my posts now are ya?  ;)


Umm...I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything!

(in reply to puella)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 12:51:30 PM   
littlesarbonn


Posts: 1710
Joined: 12/3/2005
From: Stockton, California
Status: offline 		This has been one of my experiences since the advent of the Internet. We have a tendency to overanalyze things to the point where we deconstruct the very nature of our own foundation so that we're left with a foundation of dirt. I believe it has more to do with the usage of language than it does with the actual situations themselves. This is why someone's servitude can be deconstructed in a definitional debate, and someone with loquatious skills can convince a dominant he or she is not really dominant and really submissive and that a submissive is not submissive but really the controlling factor. To be honest, until the whole communication over the Internet thing, I never experienced this kind of problem before.

Now, you have to justify yourself by the process of communication rather than deeds. One can live the lifestyle and be benefited by it, or one can deconstruct the lifestyle and show intelligence yet little wisdom, because there is no wisdom in destroying the very foundation to which you aspire.

(in reply to RavenMuse)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 1:02:39 PM   
BitaTruble


Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:



OK so Subs have a need to serve, yes, to focus on the needs of their Dom, to bring pleasure to their Master, make his life easier in any way they can.


I rarely disagree with your wisdom, in fact, this may be the first time but I have no 'need' to serve. It is an inherent part of my nature and something I just do. It is my pleasure to be of service to him so in that it is mutual because it is his pleasure, also, that I serve him. That said, he has no 'need' of my service to him either. He is quite capable of taking care of his needs on his own. If we were vanilla, it would still be my pleasure to serve him, cater to him and try to make his life easier by doing those mundane chores he does not wish to do. To me, that's a simple act of loving him and wanting to make things easier for him. I will not fail to thrive if I am not in service though. We are rather like an old fashioned 1950's household with a twist.

The twist: What I can't do on my own is give power to him. Nor can he accept it. My power must be taken.. he must take power. Therein lies the symbiotic relationship of the M/s dynamic we share. I will serve, in some capacity, to someone, either a charity, my children or grandchildren, the old lady who lives across the street and needs her bathroom cleaned.. in some way, I will serve because it is part of the makeup of my character.  I am not particularly fulfilled by simple service.. but service with substance, the substance being power is what fulfills me as a slave. That is what the 'slave' (this slave) needs to be a slave. So, for me, it's not the service, it's the power behind the service that matters.

quote:

But it is a need of theirs, fullfilling it makes THEM happy, so doesn't that make it "About" the sub?


Ah, well. Serving doesn't 'make' me happy. Being of use enhances my pleasure in being human, but being happy is a conscious choice. I 'want' to be happy, so I am happy. No one else can 'make' me be happy or unhappy.. it's too internalized. The power - it's about the ability to take or to have it taken, so, again for me, it's not 'about' one or the other of us. It's about the power and who has it.. which is him, not me. Taking power makes him happy because he chooses for it to be so. His ability to take my power makes me breathless... it's all good.

quote:

Doms have a need to control, direct, do things their way, take up the responcibility for the relationship.


I sort of agree with this up until the part about responsibility for the relationship. That's mutual. We are both responsible for it and we both gain the benefits from it.

quote:

But doesn't that responcibility mean ensuring both sets of needs are met. Given they should have already identified most of their own needs, doesn't that mean a lot of their focus and attention is on finding and learning the subs needs? Again, doesn't that make it  "About" the sub?


If one assumes the submissive also knows their own needs, it seems to me that if they are in the right relationship, the benefits they gain are mutual and not about one or the other, but about the whole of them. It's still 'about' the power and the relationship and not the individuals who make up the relationship. It's not a matter of a dominant finding the submissives 'needs' - simply a matter of someone who knows what they are seeking, then communicating such to a potential partner to see if they are compatible. Not really a whole lot to 'find' or discover if someone is willing to tell you everything you have the right to know.

quote:

Just a wayward thought on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
It maybe "My way" but it is ABOUT both of us



I can buy that.  "We" have a hell of a lot of fun together.. and that's worth a lot of brownie points in my book.

Celeste

_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."


(in reply to RavenMuse)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 1:34:07 PM   
Level


Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: feastie

The D/s dynamic is really not much different than a plain ol' vanilla dynamic.  Two people meet, find the other attractive and voila!, a relationship is born.  One of the partners controls the relationship to a larger degree than the other.  It's just how the two people function. 

The good thing about a D/s relationship, is that the two people involved understand the power exchange dynamic and embrace it, where the vanilla couple probably don't even think about it.  The D/s couple, in the realization of their power exchange, "should" share more and be more honest about things than the vanilla couple would be.  The D/s couple takes their relationship deeper than the vanilla couple.  Not saying that a vanilla couple cannot have a very deep, loving and connected relationship, it's just somehow different. 

If they are interested in S&M activities, they add those to the mix, but not every D/s couple does.  Some vanilla couples enjoy a little kink in their bedrooms too.

The main difference is whether the dynamic is recognized and embraced.  An example, my sister and her husband have been married for nearly 14 years.  They are the epitome of the vanilla couple.  TMI (and geez, I wish she wouldn't share this stuff with me) my brother-in-law doesn't enjoy a blow job.  They have very straight, vanilla sex.  However, he makes all the decisions and she calls him Sir.  He decided they would not have more children (she has severe fertility problems) and decided that she would go ahead with her hysterectomy.  They need a new telephone, but she isn't allowed to choose one, he has to be present to make the decision.  In their 14 years of marriage, they've purchased two pieces of furniture.  A couch and a loveseat, which are now 12 years old and showing their age.  Everything else in their home is a hand-me down piece or a gift.  He's a partner in a CPA firm, he has the money to furnish their home comfortably.  But he has not decided that it's time to get a real kitchen table with real chairs, rather than an old hand-me-down piece with folding chairs.  He is still using his chest-of-drawers from childhood.  They are still white, yellow and blue.  They coordinate very well with the spanish style bedroom set that had belonged to my parents for 30 years.  He decided to purchase a laptop for her use.  She was not allowed any choice in what he purchased and she is not allowed to install software on it.  She must wait for him to do it, although he is NOT a computer guru. (In fact, he's pretty computer stupid).  

He would be shocked if anyone ever suggested to him that his lifestyle could be considered D/s (once we explained that one to him) and even more shocked to learn that most people who live a D/s lifestyle practice S&M.  He'd probably turn white and sweat at the idea of being called Master, but she may as well, as he's made her pretty much a slave.  She'd die to think that's what she is, though his clothing comes from expensive stores and hers from Wal-Mart.

But, they are happy.

After all that ramble, (forgive me, it's early), the point I'm driving at is that everyone is searching for someone that meets their needs, even if they can put a name to those needs or not.  There is no contradiction in D/s, it's more of a fallacy that has been perpetrated within the lifestyle.  Each person has his/her own needs.  In order for both to be happy, those needs must be fulfilled.  Symbiosis.  Yin and Yang.  Bread and butter


Not a ramble at all, feastie. I found it quite interesting.

(in reply to feastie)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 1:59:50 PM   
Level


Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I suppose some still have this idea that submissives should be submissive to anyone that identifies themselves as a dominant... well this one doesnt... if that makes me "unsubmissive", well I can live with that. I am submissive only to the dominant I serve, no one else. If I serve someone else because my dominant tells me to, I am still serving him.



It isn't so much a submissive refusing to submit to every dominant, though there are those that think they should, but the submissives (or "submissives") with the long laundry list of what they'll do and what they won't, which makes the relationship into a  "I'll submit on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and every third Saturday" type of creature....."if you were a real dominant, you wouldn't want me to do that"......."my ex-dom told me to lose 10 pounds, I threw the collar back at him...."-- you can almost picture them standing there, hands on hips, chomping on a stick of gum LOL.
 
I'm not saying someone with limits is a bad person, but what those limits are, and how they're presented, make all the difference in the world.
 
 

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 2:10:25 PM   
Sunshine119


Posts: 611
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
A dominant who loves very formal service isn't going to be happy with a social butterfly.  I do not use floggers and single tails, (partly because they DO reek of service to me) so I am not likely to form a bond with a submissive who lives for them, but someone who likes deep intense emotional play and loves a man who can get inside her mind is going to find me hard to resist.



A woman seeking out floggers and single tails wouldn't choose you, so don't worry about forming a bond, SHE wouldn't be interested.  After thinking about this for the last 6 months or so, I think it is the submissive that holds most of the control in the relationship.  I have an intense need to take care of another, "to serve" as others would say.  But, I can fill this need in any number of ways: being a good mother, running my social service agency or even volunteering time in a nursing home.

When I seek out someone, I look for someone that is capable of accepting the care that I wish to give.  When I look at my current relationship, I recognize that he is probably more dependent upon me than I him.  And yet, he has all the power in the relationship.  

I recognize his power and see that it is a good outlet for my need to take care of someone else.  I will happily stay in the submissive role so that I can have my need to "take care of" met.  It feeds me and gives me purpose. 

And the kinky sex is just icing on the cake....lol

In the end, we are all self-serving beings.


_____________________________


Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.

(in reply to CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 2:17:00 PM   
Level


Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunshine119

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
A dominant who loves very formal service isn't going to be happy with a social butterfly.  I do not use floggers and single tails, (partly because they DO reek of service to me) so I am not likely to form a bond with a submissive who lives for them, but someone who likes deep intense emotional play and loves a man who can get inside her mind is going to find me hard to resist.



A woman seeking out floggers and single tails wouldn't choose you, so don't worry about forming a bond, SHE wouldn't be interested.  After thinking about this for the last 6 months or so, I think it is the submissive that holds most of the control in the relationship.  I have an intense need to take care of another, "to serve" as others would say.  But, I can fill this need in any number of ways: being a good mother, running my social service agency or even volunteering time in a nursing home.

When I seek out someone, I look for someone that is capable of accepting the care that I wish to give.  When I look at my current relationship, I recognize that he is probably more dependent upon me than I him.  And yet, he has all the power in the relationship.  

I recognize his power and see that it is a good outlet for my need to take care of someone else.  I will happily stay in the submissive role so that I can have my need to "take care of" met.  It feeds me and gives me purpose. 

And the kinky sex is just icing on the cake....lol

In the end, we are all self-serving beings.



It certainly doesn't sound like he has "all the power".

(in reply to Sunshine119)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 2:40:19 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I suppose some still have this idea that submissives should be submissive to anyone that identifies themselves as a dominant... well this one doesnt... if that makes me "unsubmissive", well I can live with that. I am submissive only to the dominant I serve, no one else. If I serve someone else because my dominant tells me to, I am still serving him.



It isn't so much a submissive refusing to submit to every dominant, though there are those that think they should, but the submissives (or "submissives") with the long laundry list of what they'll do and what they won't, which makes the relationship into a  "I'll submit on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and every third Saturday" type of creature....."if you were a real dominant, you wouldn't want me to do that"......."my ex-dom told me to lose 10 pounds, I threw the collar back at him...."-- you can almost picture them standing there, hands on hips, chomping on a stick of gum LOL.
 
I'm not saying someone with limits is a bad person, but what those limits are, and how they're presented, make all the difference in the world.
 
 


I cannot argue with that one. I guess I see it as an important decision, whom I want to submit to. I think of it that way because I will be listening to and obeying someone that has a collar around my neck. I take it seriously. If I didnt take it seriously I wouldnt be so darn admament about it...lol. Its easy to "say" ..."Oh Master I will do whatever you say!" and then another to actually do it. Knowing yourself is the best gift you can give your dominant outside of the gift of submission... it makes for a much smoother path..lol. At least that is the way I see it this year...lol

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Level)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 2:40:35 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunshine119


When I seek out someone, I look for someone that is capable of accepting the care that I wish to give.  When I look at my current relationship, I recognize that he is probably more dependent upon me than I him.  And yet, he has all the power in the relationship.  

And the kinky sex is just icing on the cake....lol

In the end, we are all self-serving beings.



Exactly what I have been saying and getting criticised for but you have put into words the impressions I get from a lot of subs (in r/l) I have spoken to and what a lot of profiles seem to aspire to. They have a need to serve but lord help the dom if he doesn't adore her enough.

Yes, they have a need. Yes, we are all self serving. Yes, kinky sex is the icing on the cake. It is the unspoken threat his treats will be withdrawn if he doesn't adore her enough.

It's a fools game.

(in reply to Sunshine119)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 2:46:11 PM   
agirl


Posts: 4530
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RavenMuse

OK so Subs have a need to serve, yes, to focus on the needs of their Dom, to bring pleasure to their Master, make his life easier in any way they can.

But it is a need of theirs, fullfilling it makes THEM happy, so doesn't that make it "About" the sub?

Doms have a need to control, direct, do things their way, take up the responcibility for the relationship.

But doesn't that responcibility mean ensuring both sets of needs are met. Given they should have already identified most of their own needs, doesn't that mean a lot of their focus and attention is on finding and learning the subs needs? Again, doesn't that make it  "About" the sub?

Just a wayward thought on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
It maybe "My way" but it is ABOUT both of us



I don't have a *need* to serve at all. In some ways I probably have a pragmatic approach to the fact that I chose to be a slave. I don't like being told what to do, in fact , often, I postively detest it.  Basically, he knows me rather better than I know myself and makes better decisions than I do. Life runs more smoothly with him at the helm and I achieve more, that's just fact.
Choosing to be a slave can be a head decision, a *need to serve* doesn't have to be a driving force.

Regards, agirl



(in reply to RavenMuse)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 2:46:18 PM   
Level


Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania


I cannot argue with that one. I guess I see it as an important decision, whom I want to submit to. I think of it that way because I will be listening to and obeying someone that has a collar around my neck. I take it seriously. If I didnt take it seriously I wouldnt be so darn admament about it...lol. Its easy to "say" ..."Oh Master I will do whatever you say!" and then another to actually do it. Knowing yourself is the best gift you can give your dominant outside of the gift of submission... it makes for a much smoother path..lol. At least that is the way I see it this year...lol


You said two things that I agree strongly with, julia. It is a very important decision, and knowing yourself should enable a much better relationship, or prevent a bad relationship. Well said.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 2:48:20 PM   
Level


Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: agirl


I don't have a *need* to serve at all. In some ways I probably have a pragmatic approach to the fact that I chose to be a slave. I don't like being told what to do, in fact , often, I postively detest it.  Basically, he knows me rather better than I know myself and makes better decisions than I do. Life runs more smoothly with him at the helm and I achieve more, that's just fact.
Choosing to be a slave can be a head decision, a *need to serve* doesn't have to be a driving force.

Regards, agirl


Does conflict arise in your relationship due to your dislike of being told what to do?

(in reply to agirl)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 4:11:16 PM   
agirl


Posts: 4530
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

quote:

ORIGINAL: agirl


I don't have a *need* to serve at all. In some ways I probably have a pragmatic approach to the fact that I chose to be a slave. I don't like being told what to do, in fact , often, I postively detest it.  Basically, he knows me rather better than I know myself and makes better decisions than I do. Life runs more smoothly with him at the helm and I achieve more, that's just fact.
Choosing to be a slave can be a head decision, a *need to serve* doesn't have to be a driving force.

Regards, agirl


Does conflict arise in your relationship due to your dislike of being told what to do?


No. The situation is clear and always has been. Whilst I may not LIKE it, I chose to be his slave. There's not a lot of point arguing the toss over a situation that I choose to be in and it doesn't bother him unduly whether I like doing as I'm told or not, as long as I do it.

Regards, agirl

(in reply to Level)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109