RE: trainers (Full Version)

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



Message

emdoub -> RE: trainers (12/25/2006 9:30:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: angaothsi

<...> I really would like to know what the basics of training would be. Not for myself, Master pretty much has me as he wants me, but you see it a lot on the boards. And though I am fully aware that I do not know everything, as far as I knew there wasnt an "standard" of training. So if you wouldn't mind my questions would be.

1. When approached, how do you devise a training program? Is it tailored to the one you are training or do you have regime you go through first and then add on the areas which the sub/Master wants?

I have a number of basics that I at least refresh on, just because - then, it's what's negotiated for with the dominant.  In the vanishingly rare cases in which I take an uncollared trainee, it's negotiated with them - but they do need a very clear idea of what they want training in.  Unless they're my property, I don't deal with someone who does not have clearly defined goals.  (If they are my property, I already know what the clearly defined goals are.)

quote:

2. I assume you were reffering to domestic service, what areas do you focus on there?

Primarily, it's beverage service, table (food) service, and valet service - things like being there with a towel when the shower is turned off, knowing whether they want you to offer to scrub their back, how to scrub a back well, and like that.  Very boring stuff for 90% of BDSMers, incredibly satisfying for the 10% who get into it.

quote:

3. Do you train in sexual areas? If so, do you have sexual contact with the sub, or is it more of a "book learning" type of thing? And if you do train in sexual service, do you first discuss with the Master of the one you are training how THEY prefer certian things?


Yes, I do - upon request only.  My one unvarying rule is that my own orgasms are none of their flockin' business - my orgasms can be hired, but the cash needed is excessive to pretty much everyone.

If I'm working on a fellatio technique - the technique works on fingers just as well, and can be practiced on a dildo.  If a cunilingus technique, the hand is a poor, but servicable check on technique - and practice is best done on a Fleshlight.

I'll give coaching and demonstration on intercourse technique - pillows and hands, mostly - but if there's ever a need for better feedback, I'll do a session with the sub and their owner, and act as coach for both.

Just the way I do stuff...
Midnight Writer



angaothsi -> RE: trainers (12/26/2006 1:13:05 PM)

Thank you emdoub, very imformative. I think I have a clearer picture of how this works now.



Rover -> RE: trainers (12/26/2006 1:26:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: emdoub

Gee - the syllabus is tailored to the student - why is that so hard to understand?


I have no issue whatsoever with a syllabus tailored to the student, nor do I find it difficult to understand.  But we both know that in 99.9% of the cases in which the term "trainer" is used, it's for "legitimized" exploitation.  And in those cases, the "trainer" (read: exploiter) bristles at the notion of student control, because their real objective is to create a covert power exchange relationship.

quote:

 
Anything else about this kink you wanted to sneer at?


I know your intention is not to portray manipulation and exploitation as a "kink".  But as it relates to those two subject... sure... I have plenty to sneer at.

quote:


The kinky/sexy stuff can be trained, at request - but mostly, they know that stuff - it's the other, mundane-seeming things that make the difference between a lover/slave and a professionally-trained slave.


And I suppose this is where the wheat is separated from the chaffe... what constitutes a "professional trainer" that results in a "professionally trained" slave?  I have no quarrel with legitimate training.  I have plenty of bones to pick with manipulation and exploitation under the guise of "professional training".
 
Everyone has the right to be exploited if that is their choice.  Everyone has the right to remain consensually ignorant.  And everyone has the right to informed consent.  There's nothing wrong with eliciting information that people may, or may not, consider when making their own choices.
 
I'm not aware that you and I are in any disagreement on this issue.
 
John



emdoub -> RE: trainers (12/26/2006 10:53:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

quote:

ORIGINAL: emdoub

Gee - the syllabus is tailored to the student - why is that so hard to understand?


I have no issue whatsoever with a syllabus tailored to the student, nor do I find it difficult to understand.  But we both know that in 99.9% of the cases in which the term "trainer" is used, it's for "legitimized" exploitation.

Oh, do we? 

That may be your experience - if you've run into 1,000 people claiming to be trainers, and 999 of them were using the term to legitimize "exploitation" - but I'd be willing to bet that you can't back that (or any) number up with anything that looks like actual research.  Using the number sure does make it look legitimate, though.

As one of the 'legit' trainers, I really resent the absurd claims made about trainers in general - particularly with such astronomical numbers.

If you want a simple, clear acid test on the value of any particular trainer - ask for references.  <shades of another thread, eh?>  If a trainer can't come up with at least one good reference for their training, then it's time to be very suspicious.  It is not, however, time to be suspicious of anyone who claims the title of trainer.
 
quote:

And in those cases, the "trainer" (read: exploiter) bristles at the notion of student control, because their real objective is to create a covert power exchange relationship.

I can't think of *any* training or educational situation in which the teacher/trainer must surrender control to the student (outside of current public schools, which are failing thereby).  Nor would any student of mine have any control other than that which anyone I don't own has - the freedom to walk out the door and end training.

The student who tried to dom me, or top from the bottom, would learn self-discipline quickly, or lose the option of the door - by having it forced upon them.

quote:


quote:

 
Anything else about this kink you wanted to sneer at?

I know your intention is not to portray manipulation and exploitation as a "kink".  But as it relates to those two subject... sure... I have plenty to sneer at.

Sneer away.  My collared or owned submissives are "victims" of both manipulation and exploitation - ask any 'nilla who disapproves of BDSM.

You're using some very loaded terms that you haven't defined - a broad brush that could cover ... oh, at least 80% of the RL BDSMers I know.
quote:

quote:


The kinky/sexy stuff can be trained, at request - but mostly, they know that stuff - it's the other, mundane-seeming things that make the difference between a lover/slave and a professionally-trained slave.

And I suppose this is where the wheat is separated from the chaffe... what constitutes a "professional trainer" that results in a "professionally trained" slave?

Skills - primarily, someone who knows how to teach (rarer than many suspect), and secondarily, someone who has acquired the skills they're trying to impart. 

Someone who is a world-class tennis player may be a lousy tennis coach - while a great coach may not be a match-grade player, but they'll be good enough at the techniques to demonstrate and critique them.

quote:

I have no quarrel with legitimate training.  I have plenty of bones to pick with manipulation and exploitation under the guise of "professional training".

Do please define "manipulation" and "exploitation".

Manipulation is the process of getting someone (or something) to do what you wish it to do.  You manipulate the waitress when you ask for a refill on your coffee.  I manipulate my children when I tell them it's bedtime.  I manipulate the remote when I want the movie to pause.

Obviously, you have something more sinister in mind when you use that word.  Care to elucidate?

'Exploitation' is much the same - a scary-sounding buzzword that, basically, means "make use of".  I exploit my waitress - but I tip well, and she looks forward to being exploited by me again next time.  I exploit my daughter when I get insistent that it's her turn to do dishes - I get my dishes done, but she's less eager for the next time than the waitress is.

Care to define those scary-sounding terms?
quote:

Everyone has the right to be exploited if that is their choice.  Everyone has the right to remain consensually ignorant.  And everyone has the right to informed consent.  There's nothing wrong with eliciting information that people may, or may not, consider when making their own choices.

Elicit away - the more information everyone has, the better-off everyone is.  Uninformed consent is not, in my lexicon, consent.  However, the perjorative tone of your message does make me wonder just what you're accusing those other "trainers" (you know, the 999 to my one) of.

Do some HNGs defraud some newbies with promises of 'training' in exchange for sexual favors?  Certainly it happens.  Is the training they offer often inept?  Yup.  Does this make every trainer, or the concept of training itself, suspect?  Not so much.

I had a really bad dentist as a child.  This does not mean that all (or even many) dentists are, or were, butchers. 
quote:

I'm not aware that you and I are in any disagreement on this issue.
 
John

If I had a clearer idea of what exactly you're trying to infer here, I'd be able to judge that for myself.

Midnight Writer



Rover -> RE: trainers (12/27/2006 8:43:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: emdoub

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

quote:

ORIGINAL: emdoub

Gee - the syllabus is tailored to the student - why is that so hard to understand?


I have no issue whatsoever with a syllabus tailored to the student, nor do I find it difficult to understand.  But we both know that in 99.9% of the cases in which the term "trainer" is used, it's for "legitimized" exploitation.


Oh, do we? 

That may be your experience - if you've run into 1,000 people claiming to be trainers, and 999 of them were using the term to legitimize "exploitation" - but I'd be willing to bet that you can't back that (or any) number up with anything that looks like actual research.  Using the number sure does make it look legitimate, though.


Nope, I don't want to make it appear that I have any scientific evidence to support my assertions.  I had hoped that the term "99.9 %" was universally recognized to imply a non-scientific but overwhelming majority.  My bad, though it does not change the veracity of the assertion. 
 
If you would like to take the contrary point of view (that the overwhelming majority of "trainers" are not exploiting their students), I think that would make for an interesting argument.  Though it's noteworthy that (to this point) you have not actually disputed the premise, but simply taken issue with my usage of "99.9 %" as colloquial speech.

quote:

 
As one of the 'legit' trainers, I really resent the absurd claims made about trainers in general - particularly with such astronomical numbers.


You'll have to be more specific here.  Are you saying that, in general, it's absurd to imply that the majority of "trainers" aren't legit, or simply the use of such large, unscientific numbers?  Frankly, I can't imagine that anyone can make a reasonable case substantiating the majority (or anything approaching a majority) of trainers as "legitimate".  It has been my experience (and perhaps the experience of most others) that the overwhelming majority of self-identified "trainers" are nothing of the sort. 
 
If it helps, I'll do a Collarme search and provide you a list of profiles of self-identified "trainers" and you can demonstrate how many of them are "legitimate".

quote:

 
If you want a simple, clear acid test on the value of any particular trainer - ask for references.  <shades of another thread, eh?>  If a trainer can't come up with at least one good reference for their training, then it's time to be very suspicious.  It is not, however, time to be suspicious of anyone who claims the title of trainer.


Actually, the acid test isn't quite so simple nor clear.  Though I am an obvious advocate of references, I don't put much confidence in references from individual strangers (information only being as good as the source) and much prefer that they come from a recognized group. 
 
And while we (obviously) differ on this point, it has been my experience that there are so many charlatans claiming that they're a "trainer", it is time to be suspicious of anyone making the claim.  If you dislike the black eye these pretenders give your profession, then clean up the profession.  But until then, yeah, I'm exceptionally suspicious of anyone using the term and it generally causes me to ask some revealing questions.

quote:


And in those cases, the "trainer" (read: exploiter) bristles at the notion of student control, because their real objective is to create a covert power exchange relationship.


quote:

 
I can't think of *any* training or educational situation in which the teacher/trainer must surrender control to the student (outside of current public schools, which are failing thereby).  Nor would any student of mine have any control other than that which anyone I don't own has - the freedom to walk out the door and end training.

The student who tried to dom me, or top from the bottom, would learn self-discipline quickly, or lose the option of the door - by having it forced upon them.


You previously agreed that the curriculum is determined by what the student wishes to learn.  I would assert that is an obvious and critical bit of control, because it distinguishes between "training" designed to better one's self in specific areas of interest, from "training" to serve the "trainer".  You want an "acid test"?  I would rely more upon this issue than any other.

quote:

 
Anything else about this kink you wanted to sneer at?


quote:

 
I know your intention is not to portray manipulation and exploitation as a "kink".  But as it relates to those two subject... sure... I have plenty to sneer at.


quote:

 
Sneer away.  My collared or owned submissives are "victims" of both manipulation and exploitation - ask any 'nilla who disapproves of BDSM.

You're using some very loaded terms that you haven't defined - a broad brush that could cover ... oh, at least 80% of the RL BDSMers I know


Yeah, broad brushes are the bane of anything short of writing a novel.  And the terms are puposely loaded.  In the context of your relationship, and the 80% of those other real timers that we both know, there's the issue of informed consent.  But portraying something (say, training for instance) as something it is not (legitimate, for instance) is simply a lie, and not the basis for establishing informed consent. 
 
Let's take this issue in the full context of my post, which included the following paragraph:

quote:


Everyone has the right to be exploited if that is their choice.  Everyone has the right to remain consensually ignorant.  And everyone has the right to informed consent.  There's nothing wrong with eliciting information that people may, or may not, consider when making their own choices.


To which you replied:

quote:

 
Elicit away - the more information everyone has, the better-off everyone is.  Uninformed consent is not, in my lexicon, consent.  However, the perjorative tone of your message does make me wonder just what you're accusing those other "trainers" (you know, the 999 to my one) of.

Do some HNGs defraud some newbies with promises of 'training' in exchange for sexual favors?  Certainly it happens.  Is the training they offer often inept?  Yup.  Does this make every trainer, or the concept of training itself, suspect?  Not so much


Seems to me that we're in agreement on this issue, even if you don't like my "tone" (though as a "trainer" yourself, you might be a bit overly sensitive).  As to what I'm accusing those 99.9 % of, I should hope that it were obvious.  I'm accusing them of portraying themselves as something they are not, as having skill sets they do not, and as having intentions they do not.  And just like you, I believe that those untruths preclude the existence of informed consent.  Thus, using any of the many definitions of "abuse" relying upon the absence of consent, I can reasonably conclude that the students of these "trainers" are, indeed, victims. 

quote:

 
The kinky/sexy stuff can be trained, at request - but mostly, they know that stuff - it's the other, mundane-seeming things that make the difference between a lover/slave and a professionally-trained slave.


quote:

 
And I suppose this is where the wheat is separated from the chaffe... what constitutes a "professional trainer" that results in a "professionally trained" slave?


quote:

 
Skills - primarily, someone who knows how to teach (rarer than many suspect), and secondarily, someone who has acquired the skills they're trying to impart. 

Someone who is a world-class tennis player may be a lousy tennis coach - while a great coach may not be a match-grade player, but they'll be good enough at the techniques to demonstrate and critique them.


Ok, so you start by admitting that the combination of skills and an ability to teach are rare.  So why would you take issue with the fact that, given the rareity of such qualities, the vast majority of self professed "trainers" do not meet your own criteria?  I'm beginning to think that you don't really dispute what I've said, just the way that I've said it. 

quote:

 
I have no quarrel with legitimate training.  I have plenty of bones to pick with manipulation and exploitation under the guise of "professional training".


quote:

 
Do please define "manipulation" and "exploitation".


A fair and necessary request.  "Manipulation" and "exploitation" may exist in a consensual relationship, or they may be nonconsensual (as is the case when someone is lied to about their "trainer" and "training").  I made it abundantly clear that people can (and do) consent to their manipulation and exploitation.  I also made it abundantly clear that everyone has the right to be informed when making decisions. 

quote:

 
Everyone has the right to be exploited if that is their choice.  Everyone has the right to remain consensually ignorant.  And everyone has the right to informed consent.  There's nothing wrong with eliciting information that people may, or may not, consider when making their own choices.


I had thought that to be rather straightforward, but perhaps in the light of the further explanation, it makes more sense to you now.

quote:

 
I'm not aware that you and I are in any disagreement on this issue.


quote:

 
If I had a clearer idea of what exactly you're trying to infer here, I'd be able to judge that for myself.


Perhaps on second glance, we're in disagreement over the percentage of "illegitimate trainers", though you have not expressed a disagreement with the general assertion that they constitute an overwhelming majority; simply the use of "99.9 %" as a scientific term.
 
John



emdoub -> RE: trainers (12/27/2006 10:47:06 AM)

Okay - I'm trimming this a *lot* - no need to have one post take up over a half-page from overquoting.  No intent to lose context, I assure you.  All of the quotes can be seen intact in the post above this one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover
quote:

ORIGINAL: emdoub
<fuss about the number 99.9%> I'd be willing to bet that you can't back that (or any) number up with anything that looks like actual research.  Using the number sure does make it look legitimate, though.

Nope, I don't want to make it appear that I have any scientific evidence to support my assertions.  I had hoped that the term "99.9 %" was universally recognized to imply a non-scientific but overwhelming majority.  My bad, though it does not change the veracity of the assertion. 

Here we get into the fuzzy numbers - 'large majority', 'overwhelming majority', and 'virtually all'.  The number cited would be 'virtually all', wouldn't it? 
quote:

If you would like to take the contrary point of view (that the overwhelming majority of "trainers" are not exploiting their students), I think that would make for an interesting argument.  Though it's noteworthy that (to this point) you have not actually disputed the premise, but simply taken issue with my usage of "99.9 %" as colloquial speech.

Will I deny that there are trainers I don't respect out there - perhaps a majority?  Not at all.  However, if you're gonna use online ads/profiles as representative of the community we're examining, I'll have to admit that over 50% of all of them fail to impress me.  There's a lot of fakers, takers, and wannabes - online, well over half of 'em - whether you're talking dom, sub, trainer, or especially 'experienced'.
quote:

quote:

 
If you want a simple, clear acid test on the value of any particular trainer - ask for references.  <shades of another thread, eh?>  If a trainer can't come up with at least one good reference for their training, then it's time to be very suspicious.  It is not, however, time to be suspicious of anyone who claims the title of trainer.


Actually, the acid test isn't quite so simple nor clear.  Though I am an obvious advocate of references, I don't put much confidence in references from individual strangers (information only being as good as the source) and much prefer that they come from a recognized group. 

Oh, hell yes - let's only respect group-certified trainers.  The same day we expect dominants, submissives, tops, and bottoms to only get respect when they're group-certified.

Not everyone lives in an area with a good, recognized group.  (Just who the hell recognizes groups, anyway?  Is there some board that'll certify them?) You're asking for a level of certification that's not available to anyone - but just for the trainers, mind you.  Unfair expectations, I say.
quote:

And while we (obviously) differ on this point, it has been my experience that there are so many charlatans claiming that they're a "trainer", it is time to be suspicious of anyone making the claim.  If you dislike the black eye these pretenders give your profession, then clean up the profession.  But until then, yeah, I'm exceptionally suspicious of anyone using the term and it generally causes me to ask some revealing questions.

Good for you.  Now, pick a profile at random from a dominant, and another at random from a submissive - and take them at face value, without any judgement on your part, and see how you fare.

Quite a double standard you have going, eh?

quote:

quote:


And in those cases, the "trainer" (read: exploiter) bristles at the notion of student control, because their real objective is to create a covert power exchange relationship.

quote:

  I can't think of *any* training or educational situation in which the teacher/trainer must surrender control to the student (outside of current public schools, which are failing thereby).  Nor would any student of mine have any control other than that which anyone I don't own has - the freedom to walk out the door and end training.

The student who tried to dom me, or top from the bottom, would learn self-discipline quickly, or lose the option of the door - by having it forced upon them.


You previously agreed that the curriculum is determined by what the student wishes to learn.  I would assert that is an obvious and critical bit of control, because it distinguishes between "training" designed to better one's self in specific areas of interest, from "training" to serve the "trainer".  You want an "acid test"?  I would rely more upon this issue than any other.

This is patently absurd.  Try going into a university and signing up for a class - in any field.  Once you're a student, try to exert some control over the professor teaching that class.  Then adjust your sense of propriety while you try to make a passing grade, and soothe the ruffled feathers of the Prof who controls whether you get credit for that class.

My acid test?  Do they learn what they signed up to learn, at a price previously agreed upon?

quote:

<snip>
quote:


You're using some very loaded terms that you haven't defined - a broad brush that could cover ... oh, at least 80% of the RL BDSMers I know

Yeah, broad brushes are the bane of anything short of writing a novel.  And the terms are puposely loaded.  In the context of your relationship, and the 80% of those other real timers that we both know, there's the issue of informed consent.  But portraying something (say, training for instance) as something it is not (legitimate, for instance) is simply a lie, and not the basis for establishing informed consent.

So, training is almost never legitimate.  Care to back that assertion up?

You still decline to be at all specific on what you mean by 'exploitation' and 'manipulation' - and I asked so nicely, too.
quote:

Let's take this issue in the full context of my post, which included the following paragraph:

quote:


Everyone has the right to be exploited if that is their choice.  Everyone has the right to remain consensually ignorant.  And everyone has the right to informed consent.  There's nothing wrong with eliciting information that people may, or may not, consider when making their own choices.

To which you replied:
quote:

 
Elicit away - the more information everyone has, the better-off everyone is.  Uninformed consent is not, in my lexicon, consent.  However, the perjorative tone of your message does make me wonder just what you're accusing those other "trainers" (you know, the 999 to my one) of.

Do some HNGs defraud some newbies with promises of 'training' in exchange for sexual favors?  Certainly it happens.  Is the training they offer often inept?  Yup.  Does this make every trainer, or the concept of training itself, suspect?  Not so much


Seems to me that we're in agreement on this issue, even if you don't like my "tone" (though as a "trainer" yourself, you might be a bit overly sensitive).  As to what I'm accusing those 99.9 % of, I should hope that it were obvious.  I'm accusing them of portraying themselves as something they are not, as having skill sets they do not, and as having intentions they do not.  And just like you, I believe that those untruths preclude the existence of informed consent.  Thus, using any of the many definitions of "abuse" relying upon the absence of consent, I can reasonably conclude that the students of these "trainers" are, indeed, victims.

Victims?  If inept job performance made the recipients of that performance 'victims', we'd ALL be victims.

A lass I met on here a while ago claimed to be a lifestyle slave and painslut, with 9 years of experience - and demonstrated, fairly quickly, that her experience had all been gotten in chatrooms.  Did that make me a victim?  Puh-leeze.

Again - just what are these horrible 'trainers' doing that gets your undies in such a bundle?

Is it really that much worse than the underqualified dominants and submissives who abound and give us all a reputation that necessitates caution for anyone who gets involved in BDSM - or Real Life, for that matter?
quote:

 
quote:


The kinky/sexy stuff can be trained, at request - but mostly, they know that stuff - it's the other, mundane-seeming things that make the difference between a lover/slave and a professionally-trained slave.


quote:

 
And I suppose this is where the wheat is separated from the chaffe... what constitutes a "professional trainer" that results in a "professionally trained" slave?


quote:

 
Skills - primarily, someone who knows how to teach (rarer than many suspect), and secondarily, someone who has acquired the skills they're trying to impart. 

Someone who is a world-class tennis player may be a lousy tennis coach - while a great coach may not be a match-grade player, but they'll be good enough at the techniques to demonstrate and critique them.


Ok, so you start by admitting that the combination of skills and an ability to teach are rare.

Rare as compared to what?  Carbon atoms?  Certainly.  People who can honestly claim excellence with a cane?  Not so much.

What I object to (other than the slurs on anyone who calls themselves a trainer, just because) is the far-too-common assertion that every dominant, regardless of experience or skill in training, should automagically know how to train their submissives - when trainer is a discrete skill set, having very little to do with skill in D/S or S/M, or any other variation.  Being a good trainer does not make one a great singletailer - and being phenomenal with a singletail does not make someone good at training.  Or is that point going to be passed over again?
quote:

So why would you take issue with the fact that, given the rareity of such qualities, the vast majority of self professed "trainers" do not meet your own criteria?  I'm beginning to think that you don't really dispute what I've said, just the way that I've said it. 

If you wanna be blunt, the majority of *anything* doesn't live up to my standards - my personal standards are pretty high.  I know of a number of "professionals" in various fields that I wouldn't trust to do their jobs well if their lives depended on it.  Such is life.

That you single out trainers as scum of the earth unless they prove otherwise, I do dispute - wholeheartedly.  I'll be much more likely to respect that stance of yours when you hold others to the standards that you want to hold trainers to.

quote:

 
quote:


I have no quarrel with legitimate training.  I have plenty of bones to pick with manipulation and exploitation under the guise of "professional training".


quote:

 
Do please define "manipulation" and "exploitation".


A fair and necessary request.  "Manipulation" and "exploitation" may exist in a consensual relationship, or they may be nonconsensual (as is the case when someone is lied to about their "trainer" and "training").  I made it abundantly clear that people can (and do) consent to their manipulation and exploitation.  I also made it abundantly clear that everyone has the right to be informed when making decisions.

You do not, however, give definitions or examples of this exploitation and manipulation that you so wholeheartedly object to in 99.9% of trainers. 

If you're simply objecting to nonconsensual behavior, I'm right with you - but bitch about that, not "exploitation".

quote:

 
Perhaps on second glance, we're in disagreement over the percentage of "illegitimate trainers", though you have not expressed a disagreement with the general assertion that they constitute an overwhelming majority; simply the use of "99.9 %" as a scientific term.

No, I don't see much agreement here.  Whether you're choosing a trainer, dominant, submissive, top, or bottom, it's caveat emptor all the way - be cautious, check references whenever you can, and trust those whom have given you reason to place that trust.  Trainers included, but not as a special, "more fraudulent than most" category.

Midnight Writer



LordODiscipline -> RE: trainers (12/27/2006 12:01:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: emdoub


If I am reading this corectly, you are saying that there are 'good trainers' out there - that there is a 'specific skill set' that is necessary and that these people are recognizable by their peers and therefore presentable as exemplars...
 
1. What are these skill sets that you mention?
2. Where did you get the training that makes a "trainer" (per your definition)
3. Who are the peers which would recognize "you" (*or, anyone) as a 'proper' and certifiable *by their standards and within leather, BDSM, MOUSE*? (please note: Including someone intimately involved with you currently is a sincerely poor reference, as they are less than neutrally credible and more than liable toward a predisposition and bias)
 
I know about 6 people that I would state can and should "train others" in Generic and SPECIFIC skills... and, they would tell you and anyone else that they do not - can not - train others in many things - just in the ones in which they have become experts...
 
Among these are Flagg and Soulhuntre of 'the Estate' and all of the rest are through APEX's programs in Arizona.
 
If you were to tell me that you were a graduate of The "Emily Post School of Gracious Living" (or, some other such place and/or training course) or that you graduated Vanderbilt Academy and Finishing School in Prescott Rhode Island with the class of 2001, I would understand your basis for such.
 
If you were to say that you have attended many classes on serving and proper ettiquette for social events where high protocol *an over used and abused term* was used  AND hasd taught it at TES Fest and in the olocal group to acclimation and attendence - I could understand it a bit less - but, it is all good.
 
I am just wondering where someone would find themeself a :trainer: with the :right amount: of the requisite experience and training to where they could be taken seriouly when they make such an assertion about themself.
 
I mean - from a sexual perspective - I can direct someone towards the perfect BJ and/or the ability to please  a man *generically*... but, that is from dedicated experietial basis and without any real "training" without grostequely delightful exploitation. Saying that "you" can train someone "legitimately" in  matter of sexual performance is like saying that 'The Queen of England can teach someone to breathe'... certainly she might direct them toward an expansion of their understanding - but, does the repetitive nature of the act make her an expert to be recognized as such by her peers??
 
I would rather go to a pulmonary specialist for insight.
 
Up to now the two of you are simply gnashing teeth and there is no substance provided to make the assertion that one is a :trainer" believable from a real world standpoint woithout certification as a trainer and exposure publically as would be found at the Estate or through an organization such as APEX.
 
~J



LaTigresse -> RE: trainers (12/27/2006 12:23:31 PM)

using fast reply here.....

Okay, since I believe in the whole sticks and stones theory I really really have to ask something that has been just bugging the living shit out of me since I first saw the term "trainer' or the phrases "I have been trained" or "I want to be/need to be trained"

First of all, if someone considers themself a trainer, how in the world are they going to train someone for another? Call me crazy, call me overly simplistic, call me a bitch BUT to ME it just seems rediculous.

Here is why..........Vanilla couple meets, flirt, date.....yada yada yada. Vanilla guy finally asks vanilla woman "will you marry me and put up with my bullshit till death due us part or one of us gets sick of the other's shit?" Vanilla woman sits, thinks about it, looks at his potential, then finally says "ohhhhhhhh okayyyyyyyyy". Then she goes into hyperfreaky wedding planning overdrive. They have the big day, sicking and alot of freaking out later. And then, wedded bliss....ahhhhhhhh. Lots of door slamming, squabbling, dude gets locked out for staying out drinking the boys, woman gets bitched at for spending too much money, dude gets bitched at for not doing his fair share around the homestead. Finally after about 15 years they settle into some sort of truce or get sick of looking at one another and he sleeps with the secretary or she with his best friend........or whateverrrrrr.

Now, after all that my point is this. All that bitching and squabbling in the middle is pretty much an individual sorta deal.

One woman may have gotten mad that her hubby said he was going to be home around 8 and wanted to nail his nuts to the wall when he wasn't home by 8:15, another woman might not even think about it until 10ish rolls around and isn't really mad until about 3AM. One guy might get upset that his woman spent $80 at the grocery store instead of $60, another might not be upset unless she maxed out the credit cards to the tune of five figures. One woman might be upset that the guy tosses his dirty laundry and wet towels on the bathroom floor while another might not be the slightest bit annoyed until he forgets to do the annual rain gutter cleaning.

And sex training?!?!?! WTF??? Call me picky but I GUARANTEEEEEEEEEEEE there is no one that can possibly teach a partner how to please me exactly the way I want to be pleased. AND, quite frankly I don't want anyone to try.

I just sit here and wonder, how the hell is a D/s M/s, BDSM relationship so much more special/different that being a lower case "s" in one requires some sort of training beyond the capitol "D" "M" partner's part of the relationship? I mean REALLY, isn't it just part of getting to know one another? Knowing all the things that make each other tick, what pleases one another, etc etc etc. The whole concept just baffles me.

I have a friend that is very definately a slave and recently entered into a 24/7 house position. She has served several mistresses before. In fact she was referred by one of them to the current one. She just recently has reached a point in her current service that she is allowed time online. She and I spent some time catching up yesterday. I specifically asked her about her training and how any past service may have benefited her current situation. She told me that there was nothing from the past that has been applicable to her current service and that her past service/training actually HINDERED her initial transition into her current position quite alot.

Soooooo, all of that being said I just don't get it at all. Seems to me to be a way to get play without any commitment of sorts.



KatyLied -> RE: trainers (12/27/2006 12:33:02 PM)

Add me to the group that just doesn't get it.  I'll never understand how one person can "train" you for another.  It makes no sense. 



Rover -> RE: trainers (12/27/2006 12:45:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: emdoub
Okay - I'm trimming this a *lot* - no need to have one post take up over a half-page from overquoting.  No intent to lose context, I assure you.  All of the quotes can be seen intact in the post above this one.


I'll do the same trimming, and hope that you'll interject additional quotes where appropriate.

quote:


Here we get into the fuzzy numbers - 'large majority', 'overwhelming majority', and 'virtually all'.  The number cited would be 'virtually all', wouldn't it? 


Evidently you simply wish to quibble over numbers.  Fair enough.  State your fuzzy number to compare with my fuzzy number, and we can each quibble with one other.
 
quote:

  
Will I deny that there are trainers I don't respect out there - perhaps a majority?  Not at all.  However, if you're gonna use online ads/profiles as representative of the community we're examining, I'll have to admit that over 50% of all of them fail to impress me.  There's a lot of fakers, takers, and wannabes - online, well over half of 'em - whether you're talking dom, sub, trainer, or especially 'experienced'.

 
If you're going to limit the sample size to trainers that I (or you) know personally, that's a statistically biased and unscientific group.  I'd venture to say that statistically, the people we both know personally are remarkable and unaverage in more than a few respects. 
 
As for all "trainers", it's evident that you and I both agree that the majority are (to use your terms) "fakers, takers and wannabes".  My fuzzy numbers are "a vast majority".  Your own "fuzzy numbers" are "well over half".  If you'd like to slice and dice the difference between those two characterizations, please be my guest. 
 
quote:

  
Oh, hell yes - let's only respect group-certified trainers.  The same day we expect dominants, submissives, tops, and bottoms to only get respect when they're group-certified.

Not everyone lives in an area with a good, recognized group.  (Just who the hell recognizes groups, anyway?  Is there some board that'll certify them?) You're asking for a level of certification that's not available to anyone - but just for the trainers, mind you.  Unfair expectations, I say.


To begin, identifying one's self as a Dominant, submissive, Top or bottom makes no claim about their relative skill levels.  Stating that one is a trainer does.

Perhaps you'd like to offer your own (fair) expectations for certification.  I know it's not the single reference you mentioned in an earlier post.  By what criteria and by whom should a "good trainer" be judged?  By what manner should they have acquired those skills?  Does a "good trainer" learn their craft from other "good trainers" at demos, workshops, etc?  Does a "good trainer" present at these same demos, workshops, etc?
 
You've had the unfair advantage of picking apart my own assertions.  Let's even the playing field.
 
quote:

  
Good for you.  Now, pick a profile at random from a dominant, and another at random from a submissive - and take them at face value, without any judgement on your part, and see how you fare.

Quite a double standard you have going, eh

 
Where, praytell, have I ever suggested that anyone be taken at face value?  There's no double standard coming from me.  I'm of the opinion that a great majority of people on the internet are not what they portray themselves to be.  That's inherent to the internet itself, and not BDSM. 
 
Please, do me the courtesy of not arguing a point that I have not made.
 
quote:

  
This is patently absurd.  Try going into a university and signing up for a class - in any field.  Once you're a student, try to exert some control over the professor teaching that class.  Then adjust your sense of propriety while you try to make a passing grade, and soothe the ruffled feathers of the Prof who controls whether you get credit for that class.

My acid test?  Do they learn what they signed up to learn, at a price previously agreed upon?

 
Are we making comparisons to University classes and Professors?  I don't think it will be a very flattering analogy for your argument.  Universities are accredited.  Professors are certified by their own degrees, peer reviewed by faculty, have obtained the highest academic rank, and in the case of Phd's have demonstrated (to the satisfaction of an accredited board) a mastery of the subject matter.  
 
Since you think the analogy is fitting, let's simply ask which "trainers" have obtained such credentials.  I think the percentage will be exceedingly small.
 
 
quote:
So, training is almost never legitimate.  Care to back that assertion up?

You still decline to be at all specific on what you mean by 'exploitation' and 'manipulation' - and I asked so nicely, too.

 
We both agree that "well over half" (to use your terminology) of the "trainers" are "fakers, takers and wannabes" (also your terminology).  And so, the (insert your qualifying term here... I choose "overwhelming") quantity of "training" is (by necessity) not legitimate.  Seriously, make an argument to the contrary.
 
And I thought I had quite adequately defined my use of "manipulation" and "exploitation" in the previous post.  All manipulation and exploitation is not the same.  I have steadfastly maintained that one may consent to their own manipulation and exploitation, a condition that you have rightly noted exists in many power exchange relationships (and relationships of other kinds).  But one may also be denied their right to informed consent by those very same "fakers, takers and wannabes"... something you have correctly agreed is nonconsensual (and the basis for many definitions of "abuse"):
 
quote:

 
Uninformed consent is not, in my lexicon, consent.

 
To say that I have declined to be specific is factually untrue.
 
quote:

  
Victims?  If inept job performance made the recipients of that performance 'victims', we'd ALL be victims.

 
Surely you are not equating the "fakers, takers and wannabes" as simply "poor performers".  Now you're being disingenuous.  We both know, and have agreed that, those "fakers, takers and wannabes" deny people of their right to informed consent.  And you have already stipulated that the lack of informed consent precludes the existence of consent.  Are you now saying that nonconsensual relationships are not "abuse"?  If not, why not?
 
quote:

  
Again - just what are these horrible 'trainers' doing that gets your undies in such a bundle?

Is it really that much worse than the underqualified dominants and submissives who abound and give us all a reputation that necessitates caution for anyone who gets involved in BDSM - or Real Life, for that matter?

 
If such actions, in your words, necessitate caution for anyone wishing to become involved in BDSM, why do you bristle when the actions of the majority of "fakers, takers and wannabe" trainers necessitates caution as well?
 
And my undies aren't in a bunch.  You're the one that seems so offended by the notion that the vast majority of "trainers" are liars.  Evidently they are an attractive and sympathetic constituency to you, though for the life of me I cannot understand why.
 
quote:

  
Rare as compared to what?  Carbon atoms?  Certainly.  People who can honestly claim excellence with a cane?  Not so much.


Rare as in they are decidedly in the minority.  You have said so yourself.

quote:


What I object to (other than the slurs on anyone who calls themselves a trainer, just because) is the far-too-common assertion that every dominant, regardless of experience or skill in training, should automagically know how to train their submissives - when trainer is a discrete skill set, having very little to do with skill in D/S or S/M, or any other variation. 

 
You're demonstrating the very same behavior that you found so offensive in Focus in another thread.  No one slurred "all" trainers.  I take issue with the same "fakers, takers and wannabes" that you do.  If the shoe doesn't fit, why do you persist in trying it on?
 
quote:

  
Being a good trainer does not make one a great singletailer - and being phenomenal with a singletail does not make someone good at training.  Or is that point going to be passed over again?

 
Heaven forbid that I should pass over this.  Fact is, I've played a lot of sports in my day.  A lot.  And I know full well the old adage that "those who can do, those that can't teach".  It's not entirely true (in that "those that can" teach as well), but it certainly is relevant to your point.  Though I'm not at all certain what your point is relevant to.  I have never (read not ever, not once, never ever) been to a demo, workshop, etc. in which the presenter on any topic stated that they are not accomplished at the skill they are presenting.  Have you?  You run a group in Minnesootah... has your group ever done so?  Ever?
 
quote:

  
If you wanna be blunt, the majority of *anything* doesn't live up to my standards - my personal standards are pretty high.  I know of a number of "professionals" in various fields that I wouldn't trust to do their jobs well if their lives depended on it.  Such is life.

 
And I am saying the same thing about the majority of "trainers" (you are as well).  Goose, meet gander.
 
quote:

  
That you single out trainers as scum of the earth unless they prove otherwise, I do dispute - wholeheartedly.  I'll be much more likely to respect that stance of yours when you hold others to the standards that you want to hold trainers to.

 
Seriously, this isn't emdoub it's Focus.  Because that is exactly what he would have said.  And taking your role, I will ask you were anyone has said that "trainers are the scum of the earth unless they prove otherwise".  You might be well served to go back and read your posts to Focus.  I think you'll find them illuminating.

As for holding everyone to the same standards (truthfulness) that I hold trainers, I don't think any objective analysis of my posts can come to any other conclusion other than I alread do.  I jump six feet up anyone's rectum when I sense that they're lying, and to imply that I don't is just silly. 
 
quote:

  
You do not, however, give definitions or examples of this exploitation and manipulation that you so wholeheartedly object to in 99.9% of trainers. 

If you're simply objecting to nonconsensual behavior, I'm right with you - but bitch about that, not "exploitation".

 
And after all this, you simply don't like my terms.  You say tomato, and I say tomahto.  I hope you're feeling better.
 
quote:

  
No, I don't see much agreement here.  Whether you're choosing a trainer, dominant, submissive, top, or bottom, it's caveat emptor all the way - be cautious, check references whenever you can, and trust those whom have given you reason to place that trust. 

 
Amen to that brother.  No disagreement from me.
 
quote:
Trainers included, but not as a special, "more fraudulent than most" category.

 
Well, I guess everyone can make up their own mind about.  I've expressed my opinion, you expressed yours, and everyone else makes up their own mind. 
 
John



Leonidas -> RE: trainers (12/27/2006 5:47:02 PM)

Yeah, trainers.  Shocking as this may be, I'm going to have to throw in with Rover on this one.  Most of the "trainers" out there just heard the free milk and a cow story and fell in love.  The vast majority (see how I artfully dodged numbers there) of "training" that goes on is just a good excuse for the "trainer" to fuck/suck/plug/fig/flog/tie/whip/clamp/cane/stick an unwary "trainee" until the new wears off, so that they can then pronounce them "trained" and available for someone else to fuck/suck/plug/fig/flog/tie/whip/clamp/cane/stick.  It's really cool for the "trainer" to have that extra bit of leverage that succeeding or failing at "training" brings, ain't it?

For "training" to have any meaning, there must be a body of knowledge, skill set, or archetype that the trainee is being trained to master or exemplify.  You can train a ballet dancer.  You can train a gymnast.  You can train a boxer.  In each case there is a more or less objective set of measures that one can apply to the successful trainee to judge both their individual talent and the efficacy of the training.  Of course, in order to be a good judge, you'd have to know something about ballet, or gymnastics, or boxing in the first place.

Slaves can be trained, if there is some objective or even subjective set of measures that you can apply after the "training" to determine whether they are, in fact, trained.  I have, on occasion, trained slaves for others, but only because they liked the way my slaves were trained to a specific architype and set of protocols, and wanted a similar result, so they sent their girl to serve with my girls for a while, in order to learn.

One little side note on sexual training.  Yes, there is such a thing.  It's been going on for a very long time, and yes, there is no mistaking the difference between a slave girl who is so trained, and one who is not.  Google "pompoir" if you'd like an introduction.  Only thing is, the actual sexual training of a girl doesn't have a lot to do with fucking her, so relatively few "trainers" have the patience for it.



MaryT -> RE: trainers (12/27/2006 6:48:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas

Yeah, trainers.  Shocking as this may be, I'm going to have to throw in with Rover on this one. 


I have a blast watching him debate - it's purely enjoyable.

The question at hand:  It's not necessary for a het female sub ... it's just not.   We outnumber the males by quite a lot I suspect.  The trick is seperating the wheat from the chaffe and finding someone who communicates well.  That's all a teacher need be:  Someone who knows their stuff and communicates well.  It takes patience finding that, and given that many of us suffer a shortage in that department, I can see how a "professional trainer" might be appealing to some.  I don't like the word "trainer" myself and believe that "training" is what passes for education in much of the US.   It's very limited ... not what I'm after.  [:)]

As to alterior motives of the those who claim to be "professional trainers" ... well, I hope they get what they want without taking anything away from their students.  Frankly, if I was paying someone - I am the customer, not the submissive.

MaryT





xBullx -> RE: trainers (12/27/2006 7:26:38 PM)

Sweetnsoftinpa,

I have no idea what the debate in the latter pages of your thread is about. But you and your owner should try and check out the BDSM groups in your area. I am a Gorean, so groups in your area are out of my realm of knowledge, but that fellow Rover is from Pittsburgh, maybe he can help, hell maybe someone already has, I can't hardly read through all the quote pastes and crap they have to drag around all the time. I know the BDSM group in Des Moines, that I attended a time or two had a very knowledgeable female domme type that offered to work with both tops and bottoms to teach them her version and skills within the lifestyle. Something like that could be a good start and hers was mostly about disciplines or arts of the craft, not sex. Well I suppose she would have taught sex, but it didn't seem like a priority.  Like I said, if someone suggested this already, disreguard my redundance. That's all I have. Good luck.

Live well

Bull




xBullx -> RE: trainers (12/27/2006 7:34:55 PM)

Shakes my head in Disgust,

Hell I hate wehn I miss or skip past import parts of a thread. I think I'll just read the crib notes that Hup leaves and comment on those. I didn't see it was an online only.

Disregard all I posted in this thread before the word shit.

                                                               SHIT!!!

Live <-- key word.... Live well,

Bull



emdoub -> RE: trainers (12/27/2006 11:48:30 PM)

I think you misread, xBullx - I don't do online anything but chat - if I'm talkin' about training, I'm talkin' Real Life.

Midnight Writer



emdoub -> RE: trainers (12/28/2006 12:43:47 AM)

Okay - 3 long replies called for, and a quickie.  I think I did the quickie okay - let's start on the first of the long ones,

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline

If I am reading this corectly, you are saying that there are 'good trainers' out there - that there is a 'specific skill set' that is necessary and that these people are recognizable by their peers and therefore presentable as exemplars...
 
1. What are these skill sets that you mention?

The ability to teach.  That breaks down into several different skills.

First, you have to remember how it was when you didn't understand this stuff - and frame the explanations to start at that point - so you're not telling someone who can't balance a tray in the first place how to set the tray up for maximum balance as it's unloaded - start at the basics, and work up from there.

Then it's useful to be able to identify the three learning types - visual, audio, and kinetic - figure out whether your trainee learns best when seeing, hearing, or doing - and tailor your approach to fit, for plain effectiveness.

Communication is, of course, the key skill in any training scenario - you've got to be able to communicate effectively, and recognize (and adjust) when communication is failing.

quote:

2. Where did you get the training that makes a "trainer" (per your definition)

Life, mostly - I started teaching in '77, was teaching at a college level in '79, and have been teaching, in one form or another, ever since.  I've got a background in psych (pregraduate, college level), and years of experience in instruction.  I've never taken a formal class in education, but I've audited some fair bit of the materials involved.
quote:

3. Who are the peers which would recognize "you" (*or, anyone) as a 'proper' and certifiable *by their standards and within leather, BDSM, MOUSE*? (please note: Including someone intimately involved with you currently is a sincerely poor reference, as they are less than neutrally credible and more than liable toward a predisposition and bias)

Hmm... I had a reputation for it on the Olde alt.sex.bondage - if you read there, Alex M., who knows I despise him and fears being in the same geographical area as me (for good reason) will give me a good recommendation.  I can give several local recommendations - either folks I have trained, or the people who have observed their skills afterward.  I have no current submissive or trainee.  Probably my best references are previous slave/trainees, who got the most extensive training - and who are not terribly good friends these days.  They'll give an honest read - but won't claim we're on good terms.  Others in the local community have seen the results I get. 
quote:

I know about 6 people that I would state can and should "train others" in Generic and SPECIFIC skills... and, they would tell you and anyone else that they do not - can not - train others in many things - just in the ones in which they have become experts...

If I'm asked to train in a skill in which I'm unqualified (like belly dance), I know who to bring in as a trainer - I'm a jack of all trades, not a master of all of 'em.  Most of the basics, I can claim to have mastered myself.  Some of the more esoteric skills (like massage), I've never been asked to train in, though I'm capable.
quote:

Among these are <...>

I know Apex only by a read from a local here from AZ - so I don't know any of those names.  If there's a nationwide network of trainers, I don't know of it - and, frankly, don't give a rip.  I don't expect anyone to travel hundreds of miles just to be trained by me, nor would I recommend that anyone else travel that far to be trained by someone else.
quote:

If you were to tell me that you were a graduate of The "Emily Post School of Gracious Living" <...>

Nope - finishing school was not one of my experiences.  I've read most of the relevant books, and can do a fair job of teaching someone which fork to use at which point in a formal meal - but that's not nearly the issue that you may think.

quote:

If you were to say that you have attended many classes on serving <...>I could understand it a bit less - but, it is all good.

As I said before, this is largely training not in high demand - very few BDSMers run at that level, and even fewer worry about that level of formal social interaction, outside of fantasy.

However, I have made a living as waitstaff in a medium-high class of restaurant, have some close friends who have worked in the 5-star class, and have trained other waitstaff - which is far closer to what is going to be called for in your average BDSM situation.  They're really not all fantastically rich folks with a housefull of slaves and servants, y'know?

In other words - wanna come back here to reality for a bit?

quote:

I am just wondering where someone would find themeself a :trainer: with the :right amount: of the requisite experience and training to where they could be taken seriouly when they make such an assertion about themself.

Having done so over the last decade or so with consistent results seems to satisfy my requirements - if that doesn't work for you, feel free to find someone to better suit your needs.

Unless you're just yanking chain to snipe, and have no use for a trainer yourself - in which case, I must ask why you're wasting both of our time?
quote:

I mean - from a sexual perspective - I can direct someone towards the perfect BJ and/or the ability to please  a man *generically*... but, that is from dedicated experietial basis and without any real "training" without grostequely delightful exploitation.

So, you're talking about something you've never done.  Dancing is a wonderful, blissful experience - repeating the steps by rote over and over again, to gain the skill to dance at that level, is tedious.  The same is largely true of sexual skills - the result can be glorious, the process is not what anyone does for fun.
quote:

Saying that "you" can train someone "legitimately" in  matter of sexual performance is like saying that 'The Queen of England can teach someone to breathe'... <...>

Much of my secondary work in psych was sexuality, and I've made the skills study a personal hobby for over 2 decades. 

Can I teach it?  Yup.  Do I consider it essential to basic D/s training?  Nope - as I've said before.  Does your focus here say something about you?  Yes, I do believe it does.
quote:


Up to now the two of you are simply gnashing teeth and there is no substance provided to make the assertion that one is a :trainer" believable from a real world standpoint woithout certification as a trainer and exposure publically as would be found at the Estate or through an organization such as APEX.

As I stated before - if there's any accredited organization endorsing trainers, I've never heard of it.  If you don't want to believe me, fine - my world will not crumble without your approval.

By reputation, Apex is a busy, large, and middlin' cliquish (according to my only F2F report) group - probably worthwhile if you're in the Phoenix area.  If you're not in the Phoenix area, it's pretty much immaterial, isn't it?  Do they, actually, provide credentials for local trainers?  That'd be a surprising tidbit.

If you think I'm a fake - say so, and give reasons other than absurd "qualifications" you'd like as reasons - or, if those qualifications aren't absurd, give a list of other trainers who can claim them - it'd be interesting.

If "Apex-approved" is what you're looking for in a trainer, I'm not it - I haven't been to Phoenix in just about 2 decades.  If you're looking for a TIES-approved trainer (they're kinda local to me), you're also out of luck - TIES does not officially approve of anyone - and anyone they officially disapprove of is banned, and the only act that will cause that is willful nonconsensuality.

One could ask *you* the same questions about your qualifications as a dominant - have you completed the training taken by any drill instructor in the military?  Fortunately or otherwise, I know how silly that gets, and refuse to rise to the bait.

Midnight Writer



emdoub -> RE: trainers (12/28/2006 1:11:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse
<...> I really really have to ask something that has been just bugging the living shit out of me since I first saw the term "trainer' or the phrases "I have been trained" or "I want to be/need to be trained"

First of all, if someone considers themself a trainer, how in the world are they going to train someone for another? Call me crazy, call me overly simplistic, call me a bitch BUT to ME it just seems rediculous.

Okay - lemme take one household task, break it down, and try to give an example.

DomlyDave (to take the maledom hetrosexist approach, just as an example) sits down to the daily mail this evening.  Does SubblySue watch him, and bring out the checkbook and a pen when he's thinking it's time to go find it, and show exemplary service?  Or does she go thru the mail first, opening the obvious bills and preparing checks for them in advance, with a report  on finances and a stack of stamps/envelopes to take over the chore when he's done signing checks?

How does she know which he'll prefer?  How does she handle it when there's not enough in the balance to cover all of the checks he needs to write?  How does she make this as smooth, seamless, and easy for him as possible?

If she can answer all of the questions above, does it really matter what his preference is, as long as she can identify it and handle it easily?

That's the form that training takes - take a typical household task, make sure the sub has the skills to handle any parts of it that may fall to them, and make sure that they know how to read the dom well enough to take on the tasks that will please the dom, without overstepping bounds.

That can be taught to anyone, and the skills presented to the pleasure of just about any dom out there.

That's what trainers do.

The same *can* be taught about sexual service.  Does she like head, or have a preference for fingers?  Does she like direct clit pressure, or prefer a light touch there, with most of the pressure close by?  Does she like a steady sensation as orgasm approaches, or does she like you to ramp up for it?  Learn how to do any of the above variations, and recognize which are called for, and you'll be legendary in giving non-intercourse pleasure - with pretty much any female.

The skills can be taught by a trainer - the preferences must be learned from the dominant - but the skill to read the dominant can be learned from a trainer, too.

That's how it works.

quote:

Soooooo, all of that being said I just don't get it at all. Seems to me to be a way to get play without any commitment of sorts.


A trainer without a commitment to their trainees isn't worth anyone's time, at all, at all.

You've been listening to frauds, or people who think that the frauds are trainers, m'Lady.  In the instance you cite, it's someone who mistook training to a specific dominant to be equivalent to training in the act itself.

Midnight Writer



MaryT -> RE: trainers (12/28/2006 5:27:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: emdoub
DomlyDave (to take the maledom hetrosexist approach, just as an example) sits down to the daily mail this evening.  Does SubblySue watch him, and bring out the checkbook and a pen when he's thinking it's time to go find it, and show exemplary service?  Or does she go thru the mail first, opening the obvious bills and preparing checks for them in advance, with a report  on finances and a stack of stamps/envelopes to take over the chore when he's done signing checks?


What is the average education level of your clients and do they have checking accounts of their own?  This is very simple, basic stuff.

quote:

How does she know which he'll prefer? 


Maybe he'll tell her.  [:D]

quote:

How does she handle it when there's not enough in the balance to cover all of the checks he needs to write?  How does she make this as smooth, seamless, and easy for him as possible?


Knock off a bank and bump up the bank balance?  I assume she would simply tell him that he's short on cash, and he would choose how to handle that.

quote:

If she can answer all of the questions above, does it really matter what his preference is, as long as she can identify it and handle it easily?


Unless his preference is that she does not touch the mail or his checkbook.  I would never assume my services were wanted in that way unless explicitly told otherwise.  I'm not looking to be a personal secretary anyway but would run circles around you in that department since I really was one for many years.

quote:

That's the form that training takes - take a typical household task, make sure the sub has the skills to handle any parts of it that may fall to them, and make sure that they know how to read the dom well enough to take on the tasks that will please the dom, without overstepping bounds.


Whose bounds and why are people reading each other?  Is talking a no-no in D/s?  The thing about typical household tasks is that - we all already do them everyday.  Differently, sure, and with different expectations, which takes us back to talking to each other again.  Why wouldn't a dom want to communicate for himself what he wants?  Isn't that half the fun?

quote:

The same *can* be taught about sexual service.  Does she like head, or have a preference for fingers?  Does she like direct clit pressure, or prefer a light touch there, with most of the pressure close by?  Does she like a steady sensation as orgasm approaches, or does she like you to ramp up for it?  Learn how to do any of the above variations, and recognize which are called for, and you'll be legendary in giving non-intercourse pleasure - with pretty much any female.


Strangely enough, women can actually learn most of this on their own, without a trainer, and I am guessing that men are self-taught for the most part as well.  Sex is not brain surgery.  People have been doing it successfully for 50,000 years using only each other and their own senses as guides.  I can't say that I would be particularly proud to announce that I paid a man to teach me a sexual skill and am having trouble envisioning a dom's response being anything but raised eyebrows. 

Now if you want to tinker with suspension play, that's a good thing to get instruction on, but isn't that workshops are for?

quote:

The skills can be taught by a trainer - the preferences must be learned from the dominant - but the skill to read the dominant can be learned from a trainer, too.


I am venturing that any dominant I would be interested in would not be impressed with a submissive who hired a private trainer.  The question might make for interesting poll.

MaryT



LordODiscipline -> RE: trainers (12/28/2006 6:23:12 AM)

1. Where we are discussing "skill sets" for the trainer - you are speaking about techniques...
 
The question is: What "skill sets" (*your words) are needed for a trainer to succeed.

2. "OK" - That is where I am looking.. you have formal training as a teacher/instructor... that :I: can accept.

3. As far as being "recognized" - what good is an on line recomendation from someone who may or may not be posting, but posted in Alt.sex years ago?
 
Hell I can give recommendations from "Alt.Bondage" AND "Alt.Sex" IRC AND Mouse - but they would be worth the paper that they are printed on unless they are from real people we know real time.
 
Local community is good always.
 
4. So - you do not train in areas that you are not experienced on.. ok.
5. APEX is not national -  did not infer it - neither is the estate.. they are organizations that are well known and thought of where training is concerned - hence the rationality of including them in the debate as examples.
6.
quote:

Nope - finishing school was not one of my experiences.  I've read most of the relevant books, and can do a fair job of teaching someone which fork to use at which point in a formal meal - but that's not nearly the issue that you may think.


I beg to differ... this is not about "what fork to use" for the shrimp cocktail
 
The nuances are everything in social settings... I have attended perhaps three/four of these classes and read many books... I know quite a bit, but would not think to even consider training people in something as indepthly detailed as something of this nature.
 
I would not do so, because it would be doing a great disservice to the trainee and to their significant other when they embarassed the piss out of them between courses.

Apparently your reality is that "if it is in a book - I can teach it effectively" -  I have seen this throught process negatively demonstrated in my vocation very effectively and most completely.

Working at Dennys is not considered experience with a "cultured" life [;)]<---Joke (I am spelling these things out because you have lost your domly demeanor)

Your belief of 'reality' is not "real" simply because you believe it is.

7.
quote:

Having done so over the last decade or so with consistent results seems to satisfy my requirements


But, you are the one that stating personal experiential basis as a justification for calling themselves a trainer...
 
Ten years and twelve people (maybe) is not really a 'consituency' of academic means. <---of course - this is only an opinion
 
I have conducted training for groups for longer... and, I do not consider myself a "trainer".
 
If you consider this discussion a :"waste of time" then you should not have engaged in it -
 
Hubris is a wonderful thing.

8. On sexual skills -
quote:

Can I teach it?  Yup.  Do I consider it essential to basic D/s training?  Nope - as I've said before.  Does your focus here say something about you?  Yes, I do believe it does.


You brought up training for sexual matters...
 
I simply am using it as a demonstrative means of explanation and exploration.
 
Start a conversation - have a conversation - but, stop getting pissy because you are engaged in your own beginnings.
 
Silly Rabbit - psychobabble is for professionals and those more skilled in slight of character

9. APEX is (indeed) in Pheonix - and, yes - they accredit the people that teach at Buchmans Academy or those who come for intense training in specific skills...
 
I am not saying  "you require it" -
 
You were discussing accedidation and acceptance by others with Rover -
 
I asked you what bone fides you had and gave the exemplars mentioned as a means of common understanding for communication...
 
And, the answer you provide is: a dozen people and some from the local community -
 
OK. Now I know where you are coming from when you use the word "trainer" to describe yourself and your abilities.
 
You are self defined as a "trainer" and it is something that makes you happy... good for you.
 
But, when you go out in the world and state that you are "a trainer", people are going to invariably ask you "Based on what?"
 
... and then (believe it or not) expect an explanation...
 
The short answer for you is:
 
"I have trained a dozen people to my satisfaction over the course of ten years; I have an education and experience in teaching that I bring to bear in this area; I hire people in to train them in areas where I do not have expertise to my liking and I have references in the local community and among some of the people I have trained (although, they may not like me, they will be measured and balanced in their determinations)"
 
You engaged this posting board in this conversation - try to follow it though without getting miffed at the OBVIOUS course of it and the people you involve.
 
As a 'trainer' - you should know where a statement may lead before you broach it and be prepared to respond accordingly.
 
(That is from my meager education as a certified trainer in the military)
 
~J

Edited to add: I just got a load of your signature line - I may very well be in your area this spring for LL Xl



Rover -> RE: trainers (12/28/2006 6:52:06 AM)

MaryT, it's obvious that you can function in everyday life.  No doubt the result of a fine trainer.
 
John



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625