Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave?

Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (Full Version)

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

Message

LotusSong -> Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (10/17/2006 7:30:31 AM)
Awhile back, I have responded to a thread here with something about not being a master/sse if you don't have a slave. My LTR buddy of 10 years requested a release ("I need to stop this and move on to my next stage in life"). Well, I'm here to tell you that while I am still a dominant personality, I do not consider myself a Mistresse right now. Must like a violinist can't be a violinist without a violin. ( and damn, I miss my violin)

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (10/17/2006 7:32:00 AM)
For me, dominant, slave, all that is a person's orientation- just like being bisexual or polyamorous. It's not dependent upon whatever relationship state a person is IN- it's dependent on what relationship a person is ORIENTED to be fulfilled in. So, you could be the only person alive and still be a master, or a slave, or a switch, or whatever. But I know a lot of people disagree and consider it a relational role.

Kalira -> RE: Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (10/17/2006 7:33:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LotusSong Awhile back, I have responded to a thread here with something about not being a master/sse if you don't have a slave. My LTR buddy of 10 years requested a release ("I need to stop this and move on to my next stage in life"). Well, I'm here to tell you that while I am still a dominant personality, I do not consider myself a Mistresse right now. Must like a violinist can't be a violinist without a violin. ( and damn, I miss my violin) The one I am talking to right now pretty much said the same thing. His words were 'a person can be a dominant personality at all times, but without a slave, they can not be a Master" I argued with him for a bit about this, but his words kind of made sense. So yes, I can agree with it to a point. ( and I only used the word slave and Master because that is what OUR discussion was centered around )

toservez -> RE: Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (10/17/2006 9:03:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross For me, dominant, slave, all that is a person's orientation- just like being bisexual or polyamorous. It's not dependent upon whatever relationship state a person is IN- it's dependent on what relationship a person is ORIENTED to be fulfilled in. So, you could be the only person alive and still be a master, or a slave, or a switch, or whatever. But I know a lot of people disagree and consider it a relational role. I 100% agree with this and could not say it better. I just wanted to add that people in general dissagree with this are most of the time people who get too caught up in definitions then living their life and/or need being called a Master/Mistress, slave or whatever as some sort of validation. It makes themselves better then others and they do not want to cheapen it. They want to feel special.

sublizzie -> RE: Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (10/17/2006 9:15:38 AM)
I think it's looking at the difference between who you are and a relationship you have. They are 2 different, though similar, things. Who you are is Dominant. The relationship you have is as Mistresse. You can be who you are without having the relationship that goes with it.

toservez -> RE: Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (10/17/2006 10:07:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sublizzie I think it's looking at the difference between who you are and a relationship you have. They are 2 different, though similar, things. Who you are is Dominant. The relationship you have is as Mistresse. You can be who you are without having the relationship that goes with it. To me this topic is more about how people define terms and not a theoretical discussion. What you wrote I do not have an argument with, but my definitions on the terms are that there is a difference on some level between a Dom or a Master and being dominant is a personality trait and not a life choice. To me the terms help define more specifically who someone is or how they see themselves and are not just terms to be used in relationships. Again for me, if a person only thinks that those words come with a relationship it comes off to me as trivial and some attempt at a life promotion. They are just words to me. To each their own.

LotusSong -> RE: Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (10/17/2006 10:15:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: toservez quote: ORIGINAL: sublizzie I think it's looking at the difference between who you are and a relationship you have. They are 2 different, though similar, things. Who you are is Dominant. The relationship you have is as Mistresse. You can be who you are without having the relationship that goes with it. To me this topic is more about how people define terms and not a theoretical discussion. What you wrote I do not have an argument with, but my definitions on the terms are that there is a difference on some level between a Dom or a Master and being dominant is a personality trait and not a life choice. To me the terms help define more specifically who someone is or how they see themselves and are not just terms to be used in relationships. Again for me, if a person only thinks that those words come with a relationship it comes off to me as trivial and some attempt at a life promotion. They are just words to me. To each their own. I never called myself Mistresse until Slave did :) Anyhow, my reason for posting this here is to let the guys know that I am backing up my comment with actual life experience :)

ToGiveDivine -> RE: Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (10/17/2006 11:25:56 AM)
Lotus, I always reply to your posts on bended knee - it just seems like the right thing to do! LOL

Master96 -> RE: Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (10/17/2006 11:58:36 AM)
Hummmm............ I think if a slave isn't in a relationship, they call themselves as not collared slave not as sub! I think it would be wrong to call yourself a Dominant when you don't own a slave/sub, and when you do you call yourself a Mistress. Just a thought......

Mavis -> RE: Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (10/17/2006 1:03:40 PM)
i think history should be taken into account. a Dominant who hasn't yet managed a slave hasn't earned the wings persay. But one that has, has. i'd liken it to .. If a mother loses her only child, isn't she still a mother? Although she might have been a "born mother" type pre-birth, she had to go thru it to be called a mother. Same with adoptive parents, once they've raised a child, they're parents... before that, it was a plan, a propensity, a calling, but not a title.

BitaTruble -> RE: Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (10/17/2006 1:32:18 PM)
It was a long process, fraught with doubt, reflection, letting go and embracing to final recognition of the truth of who and how I am. My walls have come down with him and with myself. The only way for me 'not' to be a slave is for a change to take place from within .. the external factors have little meaning. That said, I do believe a change 'will' take place when the relationship I have with Himself ceases to exist. I believe the walls I've torn down will go back up (or be put back up by me) and I don't believe I would be interested in bringing them back down for another person. When this relationship ends, whether it be through death or dismissal, I'll be hanging up the slave shoes, maintain fond memories and enjoy strictly S/m for as long as I'm able and from a Top space for the most part. That's the plan anyway, but who knows? All rather moot if I die first in any event. ::chuckles:: I didn't make the choice to 'be' a slave, but I can certainly make the choice to 'not' be a slave to anyone else. (I think.. not really sure on that point.) All that said, Himself is a Master with or without a slave simply because that's his truth. His internal truth is nor more effected by external influence than mine. Celeste

LadyHugs -> RE: Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (10/17/2006 2:12:23 PM)
Dear LotusSong, Ladies and Gentlemen; This has been something people have struggled with within the scene for some time now. I have had slaves. I was given my title by them. I also was deemed a Master by my peers, before I had slaves. I have been recognized as a Master, a Mistress, a lady and a dominant through the years. In between owning slaves, I never titled myself as an owner but, I was told that it is perfectly proper to keep my title as Master or Mistress, as I have had the life experiences of ownership. Just because I was in between slaves, I had to lower my standing within the community was a bunch of bull hockey pucks. I just continue to be who and what I am. A lady who loves to hug people. Respectfully submitted for consideration, Lady Hugs

MistressDolly -> RE: Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (10/17/2006 2:25:18 PM)
Hi LotusSong, At first glance one can say a Master isn't a Master unless he has a slave to master b/c the two exist in relation to each other; you can't have one without the other --there is no domming if there's no submitting. However, IMO, I think what makes a man a Master is something that goes beyond him just owning a slave. It's about him owning Mastery-like skills. I suppose it's all how you want to look at it. You mentioned a violinist is not a violinist if there is no violin... but what if the violinst gets her violin stolen - is she no longer a violinist until she purchases a new one? [:)]Fondly,Dolly

MistressMaamNH -> RE: Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (10/17/2006 3:06:57 PM)
Is a Doctor not a Doctor, if they don't have a patient? Is a Mechanic no longer a Mechanic if he doesn't have a car to repair? But then again, it's all a matter of what you are comfortable with, and how you choose to define the word, and yourself I suppose :) MMNH

LotusSong -> RE: Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (10/17/2006 3:13:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressDolly Hi LotusSong, You mentioned a violinist is not a violinist if there is no violin... but what if the violinst gets her violin stolen - is she no longer a violinist until she purchases a new one? [:)]Fondly,Dolly Pretty much my thinking. Let's say that was the last violin...she may have the ability but no way to express it.

Contesaluv -> RE: Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (10/17/2006 3:19:37 PM)
Okay, here's another one...lol If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it does it make a sound? Okay, maybe it doesn't exactly fit here but kind of the same thing no? I think everyone reaches the moment when without a shadow of a doubt, you know yourself so well that no one can define you based on what circumstances exist outside of you or not. So, slaveless or subless, I will still be who I am. A very dominant woman. Now, can I still be a Domme or Mistress if I am subless. I view that the same as a job title if I don't have the staff under me to do the work then what's the sense of the title. That said, that's why I diligently peruse and respond and interview ongoingly to attempt to build the staff I need in my life as a Mistress/Domme. Okay, just my two cents. Contesa

Argentopal -> RE: Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (10/17/2006 3:31:15 PM)
My kids are grown and gone, I no longer have any "mother" responsibilities at all. But I am still a real mother ...

LotusSong -> RE: Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (10/17/2006 3:34:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Argentopal My kids are grown and gone, I no longer have any "mother" responsibilities at all. But I am still a real mother ... And I bet you still have children :) (adults..but your offspring and I bet they still call you Mom :)

LotusSong -> RE: Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (10/17/2006 3:35:43 PM)
Oh well.. if it makes someone happy to call me Mistresse..so be it. But unless I collar the individual.. I will not be calling them slave :) (kinda like that)

MagiksSlave -> RE: Is a Dom/me still a D without the Slave? (10/17/2006 6:58:46 PM)
Must we constatly play semantics???? Magik's slave

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.152344E-02