RE: The Dualism of Obedience

RE: The Dualism of Obedience (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

AAkasha -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/21/2006 7:48:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: The "Unpaid Labor Doctrine" exists and is quite functional in relationships -- it's called devotion and being in love. It is ironic that it exists a lot in vanilla relationships. You are missing the point [by a large margin too.] In regular relationships, the service is usually divided 50-50. I would call it more committment than "love and devotion" as well. Usually 50/50? How do you figure? When it comes to "domestic duties and responsibilities" I would bet very FEW relationships are 50/50. It will lean in favor of one person ultimately, either 60/40 or 70/30. In my relationship it is 100/0. There are no complaints from my husband about this. Beyond domestic stuff, 75% of the time vs. my 25% (or less) he is "going the extra mile" to find something additional to do in order to make me smile. He has more of that gene that makes people want to go above and beyond to please the person they love. I'm not saying I don't have any of it, but it's not my top priority. If I am asked to do something for him as a favor or if he needs my help, I am of course there for him. But he is the one proactively seeking to please. quote: quote: Then there are submissives. They claim to offer this unconditional devotion, but it always has strings attached. quote: I see, if someone's not an altruist, then there are "strings attached." Nice slant. Frankly, I don't really see how you can defend people who want to receive something for nothing. Apparently you do not know what it feels like to get pleasure out of doing something for others, and nothing above that. Just because you do have strings attached to your submission does not mean everyone does. And some people actually seek out this kind of giving. In another context, you have two kinds of people that seek out the opportunity to volunteer or give to charity or be charitable on a daily basis; those that do it and want recognition, and those who do it anonymously so that no one would ever know. I don't know what book it was, but I read somewhere about the benefits of doing something anonymously for one person each day; and, how this leads to more spiritual and emotional person fulfillment for the person doing it. The trick is you cannot tell anyone, not a soul. You know what, I get that. It works. But for some people, there's no sense in doing something unless they get a return on the investment or get credit and kudos. quote: You don't even understand what the unpaid labor doctrine is, so your commenting on it is misplaced. Frankly, I think you don't understand. You are so wrapped up in the concept that you won't "get yours" or you are getting ripped off in a relationship, it's no wonder you are bitter. People with submissive tendencies either have an agenda (that they defend to the death) or they get a real sense of deep pleasure (not even definable for those that cannot feel it -- like you) from pleasing another. And, they honestly do NOT want anything in return. They have the capacity for love on a level that many do not. Perhaps a bitter divorce or bad relationships have soured your ability to comprehend this human quality. Akasha

cloudboy -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/21/2006 10:03:15 AM)
It would be nice if you read and understood something before you went off on it. The "Unpaid Labor Doctrine," a term I coined and explained is service given in a relationship with NO KINK and NO SEX (and of course no love.) See my first post on this thread. All the talk about your husband and what he does for you is, therefore, inapposite. You citing him in reference to The Unpaid Labor Doctrine only shows your misunderstanding of it. This is not a value judgment, this is just straight logical reasoning. Rather than cop to being wrong or admitting to twisting my own words and points, you just predictably attack me with negative, hypothetical projections. Sophisticated MB folk see through such tactics. Back to the substance. I don't think NO STRINGS HOUSEWORK, the near identicle cousin of The Unpaid Labor Doctrine, is sustainable. (This is my essential point.) Mistresses who are disappointed they cannot find such subs often project their own frustrations onto the subs and their "character flaws," and my point is simply, "you don't get something for nothing." The flaw in the project of "service only subs" is not in the character of subs, rather it is in the unrealistic and poorly grounded expectations of the Mistresses. Next, neither NO STRINGS HOUSEWORK or The Unpaid Labor Doctrine is applicable to marriage, because in marriages love, sex, mutuality, and give and take are in play. Whether service is 50-50 or some other proportion is really besides the point. Also, I just read on the newswires that Marriage in the USA is not an M/S relationship. Comparing a Mistress who requires, expects, and feels entitled to service from a sub or slave whom she has basically just met, to a married couple, is well, a really, really, really bad comparison. I was startled to see you pursue it so stridently. Last point, I am not the one who is frustrated. My point of orientation is sub advocacy, which is actually a positive thing. I don't think subs should feel guilty or bad about themselves because FemDoms want service from them in the form of the Unpaid Labor Doctrine. Frankly, I think subs need to expect more from their Mistresses than this, and that such an expectation is not "unsubmissive behavior." In sum, I wanted to back Anthrosub up, who basically confessed to feeling empty and uninspired in service only "D/S" relationships. As he said, "I met a Dominant who expected obedience as an unspoken rule and without any enforcement on her part. After several weeks of interaction together, I began to feel like I was "Dominating" myself in the same manner people discipline themselves not to stay up too late or be frugal with their paychecks. I found myself inwardly asking, "Where's the Domination here?" "

marieToo -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/21/2006 10:24:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha . People with submissive tendencies either have an agenda (that they defend to the death) or they get a real sense of deep pleasure (not even definable for those that cannot feel it -- like you) from pleasing another. And, they honestly do NOT want anything in return. They have the capacity for love on a level that many do not. Akasha Akasha: I took the liberty of highlighting something in your post. I hope you dont mind. I am not here to get into the whole labor doctrine debate. I just wanted to make a point about your ending statement. You say.....They dont "want" anything in return. But in your own words "they get a sense of deep pleasure" from it. If they werent getting a sense of deep pleasure, (but rather a flatliner feeling), do you think they would be submitting? Isnt that sense of "deep pleasure" something that they are getting in return?

AAkasha -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/21/2006 8:24:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy It would be nice if you read and understood something before you went off on it. The "Unpaid Labor Doctrine," a term I coined and explained is service given in a relationship with NO KINK and NO SEX (and of course no love.) See my first post on this thread. All the talk about your husband and what he does for you is, therefore, inapposite. You citing him in reference to The Unpaid Labor Doctrine only shows your misunderstanding of it. This is not a value judgment, this is just straight logical reasoning. Rather than cop to being wrong or admitting to twisting my own words and points, you just predictably attack me with negative, hypothetical projections. Sophisticated MB folk see through such tactics. Back to the substance. I don't think NO STRINGS HOUSEWORK, the near identicle cousin of The Unpaid Labor Doctrine, is sustainable. (This is my essential point.) Mistresses who are disappointed they cannot find such subs often project their own frustrations onto the subs and their "character flaws," and my point is simply, "you don't get something for nothing." The flaw in the project of "service only subs" is not in the character of subs, rather it is in the unrealistic and poorly grounded expectations of the Mistresses. Next, neither NO STRINGS HOUSEWORK or The Unpaid Labor Doctrine is applicable to marriage, because in marriages love, sex, mutuality, and give and take are in play. Whether service is 50-50 or some other proportion is really besides the point. Also, I just read on the newswires that Marriage in the USA is not an M/S relationship. Comparing a Mistress who requires, expects, and feels entitled to service from a sub or slave whom she has basically just met, to a married couple, is well, a really, really, really bad comparison. I was startled to see you pursue it so stridently. Last point, I am not the one who is frustrated. My point of orientation is sub advocacy, which is actually a positive thing. I don't think subs should feel guilty or bad about themselves because FemDoms want service from them in the form of the Unpaid Labor Doctrine. Frankly, I think subs need to expect more from their Mistresses than this, and that such an expectation is not "unsubmissive behavior." In sum, I wanted to back Anthrosub up, who basically confessed to feeling empty and uninspired in service only "D/S" relationships. As he said, "I met a Dominant who expected obedience as an unspoken rule and without any enforcement on her part. After several weeks of interaction together, I began to feel like I was "Dominating" myself in the same manner people discipline themselves not to stay up too late or be frugal with their paychecks. I found myself inwardly asking, "Where's the Domination here?" " My ENTIRE response to you was clearly about mutually loving, affectionate relationships and nowhere did I talk about "no strings attached housework" or service only relationships. YOU still wanted to come back and debate your "unpaid labor doctrine" anyway. Why not say "I was talking about non-loving, non-affectionate, non-intimate relationships." ? It's just as much the submissives fault to offer this "unpaid labor doctrine" and offer their no-strings attached housework. My point is that there are men who DO get a tremendous amount of satisfaction from serving -- without wanting anything in return -- but they must be in love with the woman, and share that love. Otherwise, it's empty. Got it now? Akasha

AAkasha -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/21/2006 8:28:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha . People with submissive tendencies either have an agenda (that they defend to the death) or they get a real sense of deep pleasure (not even definable for those that cannot feel it -- like you) from pleasing another. And, they honestly do NOT want anything in return. They have the capacity for love on a level that many do not. Akasha Akasha: I took the liberty of highlighting something in your post. I hope you dont mind. I am not here to get into the whole labor doctrine debate. I just wanted to make a point about your ending statement. You say.....They dont "want" anything in return. But in your own words "they get a sense of deep pleasure" from it. If they werent getting a sense of deep pleasure, (but rather a flatliner feeling), do you think they would be submitting? Isnt that sense of "deep pleasure" something that they are getting in return? I don't mind at all -- it's part of the point. A submissive (or vanilla guy) gets his pleasure from pleasing his mate when there's clearly a sense of mutual love and affection. This is very different from a submissive man who likes to serve but only in the context of fetish, or when given directions, when fawned over, when motivated with punishment, when told what to do, or when supervised closely. This type of submissive does require something in return, and to call it "no strings attached" is not honest. That same submissive might, however, find he is deeply satisfied once he is in a relationship with a woman he loves and she loves him; because the smile on her face means more, because a simple "thank you" makes him feel warm all over, and because he sees the longterm affects of his submission on her serenity and being. And let's face it,when you are in love, you get excited about having the opportunity to do something to make your mate smile. Some men are addicted to that high, and want to feel that connection all the time. They don't need/want anything in return, nor do they need to be dominated/motivated to do it. Akasha

cloudboy -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/22/2006 4:06:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha Why not say "I was talking about non-loving, non-affectionate, non-intimate relationships." ? That was clear from my initial postings. Only post mordem did I realize you either didn't get it or never read them.

mistressrose10 -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/22/2006 8:35:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TeeGO Thank you for the topic, very interesting to me. I'd like to add that when I think of obedience to a Dominant Woman within a D/s context. I think of willingly agreeing to obey, end of story. However obedience requires the mind to be in the submissive headspace. It is my thought one must be helped by the Domme to keep yourself in that headspace, be it through discipline, instruction, training, or whatever is needed. Am I right? Am I close to being right? Am I missing something? I would love to hear some opinions on this as well.

mistressrose10 -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/22/2006 8:46:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TeeGO Thank you for the topic, very interesting to me. I'd like to add that when I think of obedience to a Dominant Woman within a D/s context. I think of willingly agreeing to obey, end of story. However obedience requires the mind to be in the submissive headspace. It is my thought one must be helped by the Domme to keep yourself in that headspace, be it through discipline, instruction, training, or whatever is needed. Am I right? Am I close to being right? Am I missing something? I would love to hear some opinions on this as well. . I agree with TeeGo on this one.Many subs liked to be forced to do certain acts but it is all within the context of willing submission.If a sub happens to wander off the beaten track, it is the responsibility of the Domme to rope him back in by whatever means necessary.

cloudboy -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/23/2006 7:35:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha My ENTIRE response to you was clearly about mutually loving, affectionate relationships and nowhere did I talk about "no strings attached housework" or service only relationships. YOU still wanted to come back and debate your "unpaid labor doctrine" anyway. Why not say "I was talking about non-loving, non-affectionate, non-intimate relationships." ? It's just as much the submissives fault to offer this "unpaid labor doctrine" and offer their no-strings attached housework. My point is that there are men who DO get a tremendous amount of satisfaction from serving -- without wanting anything in return -- but they must be in love with the woman, and share that love. Otherwise, it's empty. Got it now? Akasha The facts don't support your claim. You claim, "My ENTIRE response to you was clearly about mutually loving, affectionate relationships and nowhere did I talk about "no strings attached housework" or service only relationships." Oddly, though, it was your first post to me that got everything started. Your LEAD THOUGHT was, "The "Unpaid Labor Doctrine" exists and is quite functional in relationships -- it's called devotion and being in love." I tried to correct you on this one, and you'd have none of it. FYI: Its graceless to try and get in the last unapologetic word when your supposition and line of argument were so clearly wrong. It doesn't matter if you are a Mistress, regular person, or a street bum, such conduct just lowers your character.

AAkasha -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/23/2006 8:30:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha My ENTIRE response to you was clearly about mutually loving, affectionate relationships and nowhere did I talk about "no strings attached housework" or service only relationships. YOU still wanted to come back and debate your "unpaid labor doctrine" anyway. Why not say "I was talking about non-loving, non-affectionate, non-intimate relationships." ? It's just as much the submissives fault to offer this "unpaid labor doctrine" and offer their no-strings attached housework. My point is that there are men who DO get a tremendous amount of satisfaction from serving -- without wanting anything in return -- but they must be in love with the woman, and share that love. Otherwise, it's empty. Got it now? Akasha The facts don't support your claim. You claim, "My ENTIRE response to you was clearly about mutually loving, affectionate relationships and nowhere did I talk about "no strings attached housework" or service only relationships." Oddly, though, it was your first post to me that got everything started. Your LEAD THOUGHT was, "The "Unpaid Labor Doctrine" exists and is quite functional in relationships -- it's called devotion and being in love." I tried to correct you on this one, and you'd have none of it. FYI: Its graceless to try and get in the last unapologetic word when your supposition and line of argument were so clearly wrong. It doesn't matter if you are a Mistress, regular person, or a street bum, such conduct just lowers your character. I guess you believe that it is impossible for a man to both be submissive and also in love and showing devotion in a mutually affectionate relationship? It's not just one or the other. Many submissives have wonderful, fulfilling relationship that look, to people like you, like "unpaid labor doctrine" -- and in reality, they could not be happier. Because they DO get fulfillment from serving, and do it in the context of a MUTUALLY loving relationship. It does not mean it's "tit for tat" and he's keeping tabs on what he gets out of it. Not all submissives are like you and immediately thinking, "Well, what do I get out of it?" I hope that clears it up for you. There's a more in depth thread about this at bondage dot com, and the subs over there are "getting it" and it's a very interesting conversation. Clearly, you have an agenda when you submit; that's ok. But it's not fair to those subs that get their pleasure from serving when guys like you come along and talk about things like "unpaid labor doctrine." Subs can have both love/affection AND serve in a relationship. And, fyi, if a person (Mistress or otherwise) does not respond to you in a manner you find appropriate or deserving, it does not mean she lacks character. She might just not respect your opinion. Akasha

LeatherBentOne -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/23/2006 12:46:18 PM)
When I met my sub in real, she already knew one of my expectations was obedience. In fact, we went over my list of expectations on our first meeting and since she was in agreement, my expectations were met by her, immediately. As time goes by, the list of expectations have grown in proportion to her obedience and she knows that good behavior elicits her getting some of her wants (versus needs that are necessary) met and then some, at times. I try to remember to thank her for her submission any always give her a word of encouragement even if it is to tug her earlobe or a wink. On the very rare occasion that she isn't obedient, it's her mouth that gets her in trouble. On time, I took a clean sock, knotted it twice and tied it behind her head, sat her facing the corner (she has knee problems). She hated it !!!!!!! Well, isn't that just too bad. Snickers. I try to let the punishment suit the cime. You speak out of turn or in a disrepectful tone, you get that which you hate the most. The sock. Behave and you get what you want the most. A good beating. LeatherBentOne

cloudboy -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/23/2006 1:47:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha And, fyi, if a person (Mistress or otherwise) does not respond to you in a manner you find appropriate or deserving, it does not mean she lacks character. She might just not respect your opinion. In the objective world of verifiable facts, I do not believe subjectivism has an appropriate place. If I say the firestation is on the 500 Block of First St. and you respond that its on the 600 Block, than all that's left to do is find out where it really is. Your answer to me has nothing to do with either being "appropriate" or "deserving." Rather it has to do with either being correct or incorrect. You misconstrued "The Unpaid Labor Doctrine" right off the bat. Its right there in the record. Then, having misconstrued it, you built up an inapposite argument. The record then shows you trying to blame me for you not understanding what was clearly written in the first place, and next, getting mad at me and launching ab hominem attacks when I simply tried to correct you. Its graceless posting behavior to make comprehension errors of another's post and not only not admit to them with a simple, "O, I'm sorry, I didn't properly understand what you said in the first place" but to also proudly stand behind your own mistakes while casting blame elsewhere. Such a thing truly does say something about your character.

AAkasha -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/23/2006 1:54:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MisPandora quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: ORIGINAL: MisPandora And herein lies the answer to the thread about why we as dominas are disappointed and/or never find what we seek. Once we have someone in service to us that truly lives to be pleasing and obedient....nothing less will ever suffice. We will be endlessly disappointed until someone else comes along who is similarly motivated. Yes, "the problem" isn't in the submissives, its in what you seek. Subs don't want and therefore won't stay with The Unpaid Labor Doctrine for very long. Getting something for nothing IS very corrupting, so its no wonder you will be "endlessly disappointed" when the slave inevitably leaves The Unpaid Labor Doctrine and you are forced to find a replacement. The "Unpaid Labor Doctrine" exists and is quite functional in relationships -- it's called devotion and being in love. It is ironic that it exists a lot in vanilla relationships. When a man loves a woman deeply, he will do anything for her, and he gets a tremendous amount of pleasure doing it. He does not share this devotion with any woman, he does not seek out women to give it to (unless he is desperately lonely); in fact, he often has to be very deeply involved to be this devoted. But once he is, he will go to the ends of the earth to put a smile on the face of the woman he loves. <snip> Akasha I was typing and stopped in my tracks when I saw that you'd so eloquently replied to his blathering. It's sad that folks who have never experienced this sort of thing for themselves, much less met the individual women who have lived it are the ones judging, and telling us that WE are imagining things and that all of this doesn't exist. Truly amazing. Thanks for your post, Akasha. Blathering indeed. He is still trying to defend this nonsense in this same thread and now trying to turn it into a question of my character because I won't agree with him. Akasha

anthrosub -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/23/2006 3:01:05 PM)
I don't know if this will add anything to the latter posts of this thread but for some reason it keeps coming to mind. I have this view about businesses. My view is that if a business focuses on quality, then the profitability will take care of itself. Likewise, if a business focuses on making money, then quality suffers and the business ends up in jeopardy. I think something similar goes on within a relationship and the needs and wants that co-exist within them. If those in a relationship focus on the needs, their wants will be taken care of as a function of addressing those needs. But if the wants are the main focus, needs will go unattended and the relationship will become unstable. By needs, I'm not necessarily refering to the specific needs of the individuals involved but rather the needs of the relationship as a whole. After all, a relationship is in essence an entity in and of itself and has its own character and set of needs that the individuals that make it up have a responsibility to care for. anthrosub

jonathan -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/24/2006 1:59:19 PM)
Glad to see this thread is still alive. i've wanted to post all week, but work has just been ridiculous. i think the original post had merit as a discussion thread, but i don't think the poster has a firm grasp of his needs, from what i read from the Ladies. ladylexington, MsKatHouston, and Akasha all seem to understand the difference between feeding a submissive's fantasy life and real M/s relationships. To use a somewhat hackneyed expression, "It's about service, stupid." (No insults intended.) Ms. Akasha's posts put it the best. You don't bind a slave to You with fear of discipline, You bind a slave to You with love and adoration. Respect for the accomplishments and intelligence of his Lady. GoddeessDustyGold breaks it down very well on Her site, bottom versus submissive versus slave, where service is at the core. It's all about the psychological and emotional orientation of the submissive. Not every one can be truly service oriented. As i'm under consideration by Goddess DustyGold, we've had this discussion a few times to find out where i'm at. i'm there. The idea of dualism in obedience is what caught my attention in the first place. i had thought the discussion would be more focused on just that, does one obey out of desire to please or out of fear of discipline, or both? A BTW on 'unpaid labor doctrine'. Yes, a lot of submissives enjoy that and provide service to those who ask for it. There's even a group for this sort of exchange, SlaveWorkforce. One time, location and Her need coincided and i was able to do so for Someone. And believe me it was all about service. P.S. to Ms. Akasha: i've known of Your site for many years and was one of Your online training boys back when the Ducks were in the playoffs. During the lockout, i thought about how frustrated You must be.

anthrosub -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/24/2006 3:17:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jonathan i think the original post had merit as a discussion thread, but i don't think the poster has a firm grasp of his needs, (based on) what i read from the Ladies. I modified that sentence as I think it's a more accurate rendition of the statement. It's all about interpretation of what's written naturally, just as I'm interpreting what you just wrote. You might want to take a day or two and come back to what you wrote...it smacks of paying homage to all the Dominants than really digging into the meat of what was written. Regarding the initial topic and all that was said so far, I think it all goes into the mix. We try to talk about one aspect of the spectrum and get accused of being obsessed by that aspect (when it could be the furthest thing from the truth). I'm basically in agreement with the stance all the Dominants have taken and the points they have made (outside the "labor doctrine" tangent, that's another subject entirely and one that could be debated eternally). The sort of relationship I'm seeking may seem like the stereotypical fantasy to many but believe me, there are Dominants on this site that know exactly what I'm talking about and understand what's behind my quest in terms of sincerity, love, trust, and all the rest of it. anthrosub

jonathan -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/25/2006 10:37:06 AM)
i wasn't paying homage, i was just avoiding being redundant. They'd already said all i could or would. Which brings me back to my comment "The idea of dualism in obedience is what caught my attention in the first place. i had thought the discussion would be more focused on just that, does one obey out of desire to please or out of fear of discipline, or both?" If this thread is going to explore that in some detail, great. Otherwise, i'm outta here.

anthrosub -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/25/2006 11:03:58 AM)
Thank you for your response...it's encouraging to have someone respond without taking offense and instead giving clarification. I too would like to see more discussion about my initial post. I was thinking about it and perhaps the familiar sentence, "This statement is false." would help demonstrate the point. I've always been fascinated by that sentence because if it's true, then it's false and vice versa. I think of it as a verbal "mobius strip" and a good example of infinity. I find the same principal in the obedience conundrum. anthrosub

OriginalStuff -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/29/2006 7:40:55 PM)
If I invest My Time for My slave in,Training, sculpting her to be what I need and desire. I put hours and hours into her, then if I ask the dishes to be done they best be done. If I cant rely on her then she may hit the road.I may not always be the Dominate she might deserve, but is she always the slave I deserve? W/we live a 24/7 relationship, and there are days that niether of U/us can get free from O/our Familys, which is held high in MY relationship with her. I set forth tasks to be done for the following week, I expect them to be done. Having a pain slut for a slave, lol Corporal punishment is not always the answer.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625