quote:

ORIGINAL: MaryT

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...
MaryT

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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? 

quote:

You've had the unfair advantage of picking apart my own assertions.  Let's even the playing field.

quote:

 

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:

  

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:

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.

quote:

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:

 

quote:


Uninformed consent is not, in my lexicon, consent.

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

quote:

  

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.

quote:

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:

  

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?

quote:

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:

  

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:

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:

 

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:

  

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:

  

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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:

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:


And, according to your earlier posts, all but one in a thousand people who claim to be trainers are liars.  Nobody (at least not me, and nobody in this topic) has said anything about you not objecting to liars.  Helluva smokescreen you're laying here.

 

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:

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:

ORIGINAL: Serenityy

~~ general reply ~~
 
I have followed this thread with much interest; watched the growing debate between others on the pro's and con's of training another. I must say that I find the difference in opinions on such a thing quite interesting  
 
Many seem to look at the word training to mean something of a sexual nature? Perhaps I am misreading, but that is the impression that I have gathered so far. At the same time, some very good points were brought up in that training can be seen as something positive, that is non-sexual in nature.

quote:

I was trained from a very early age by my parents how to act properly in public; how to set a table, how to clean a house, how to address others. In addition to this, when I met my late Master, he sent me to another so that I could be trained in the proper ways of how a certain household was run. There was no sexual contact at all. I have come into contact with other slaves who were sent to other slaves to learn how to properly please their Masters sexually. Again, it was women who provided this training.
 
I find that at one time or another, each of us has gone through some kind of training or another; for some reason. There is no shame in that. If you think about it, each of our partners have at some point provided us with training of some kind; training that we have carried on to the next relationship only to have it 'fine tuned' by the new partner.
 
To be trained simply means that you have learned a skilled ability. To learn that ability, one must first go through the process of learning; no matter what it may be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: emdoub

MaryT - thanks for the enlightenment.  I'd had no idea.

If you don't want to take training, or see any reason that anyone else would, then obviously, nobody should.

I'll stop immediately.

Midnight Writer
Irony mode engaged

quote:


<blink>  Yes, I understand that anyone can call themselves a top when the only painplay they've ever done was in a chat room, and call oneself a slave and never follow an order without argument (hoping for that ever-so delicious punishment, y'know) - they're just words, after all, and don't mean anything except what the people using the words want them to mean.  Anyone calling themselves a trainer, however, should have some certification to prove the title, though - never mind that my point was that this certification is simply not available from anywhere.

If the ironic tone doesn't come through in text, let me be perfectly clear on this point - in my opinion, roles such as top, bottom, dominant, submissive, and trainer all imply some level of skill - or should, at any rate.

quote:

 
Um - you're the one talking about certification as if it's necessary or even possible - perhaps you should write the criteria and hand out the diplomas, if you can't name a source for that certification you want to see.

If a single reference is not enough for your standards, let's talk about what you think the minimum number of references should be - if I ever need  the services of a trainer for a skill I can't teach, I'll probably be quite happy to interview one of their graduates/students -  that'll likely be enough for me to judge whether or not I think they can do the job.

quote:

 
In training, I'm a strong proponent of small class size - giving demos and workshops is a whole different animal.  I know a guy with a national reputation for singletail workshops - he gives great demo.  From my own observation and talk with the folks who have bottomed to him in dungeons, however, he's only fair - so giving great demo/workshop isn't a reliable indication of anything but giving great demo/workshop. 

Perhaps, someday, there will be workshops on training that are fit for something beyond beginners - I haven't heard of any yet, though.  Nor is it something I'd be happy to try to teach to a large crowd in an hour or two.  If I ever do agree to teach someone to train, it'll be as an apprenticeship. 

quote:

 
For criteria on judging a trainer, I'll stick with what I've said already - find folks they've trained and judge the trainer by their product.

quote:

 
You have indeed made the point that anyone calling themselves a trainer is automatically suspect - here, you agree with my point that anyone calling themselves anything on the 'net does need to be checked before they're trusted.  However, you want impossible criteria for trainers - board certification of some sort, perhaps a history of attending workshops that don't exist or giving workshops (even if that's not a needful skill for a trainer, or anyone but a presenter).  You don't hold any other self-granted title to those standards - thus, my claim that you're using double standards, which you sidestepped pretty nicely.

quote:

 
The nicely-trimmed context here was your assertion that training in a BDSM context would necessitate the student having control over the trainer - my point, nicely edited, was that this doesn't work in the 'nilla world, and shouldn't be expected to work in BDSM, either.

Do please have the courtesy of adressing the points I have made, rather than trying to change the subject.  Unless you simply can't

quote:

 
While you're refusing to define your terms, please feel free to refrain from defining "legitimate".  I'll agree that much of what's passed off as 'training' is likely ineffective - but if you're going to use these loaded terms, it'd be nice to have specifics as to what you mean by them.

quote:

 
The vast majority (80%+) of the inept or unskilled out there (both in BDSM and 'nilla life) are just that - inept or unskilled, and simply don't know better.  I've run into very few who *knew* they were incompetent and claimed skills they didn't have - most don't realize that what others do easily isn't really easy for a beginner.

quote:

 
Neither I, nor anyone I've seen, has suggested that anyone calling themselves a trainer should be trusted without checking them out and using judgement - caution is good.

Caution, however, is not the same as claiming that virtually all (99.9%) of them are manipulative frauds, guilty of (as yet undefined) exploitation. 

quote:


I've seen evidence that many, in all walks of life, are undereducated in what they're doing.  I've also seen evidence of many, in all walks of life but particularly in BDSM, doing much to get better education for themselves, or showing a respectable level of skill.

Yet you single out trainers as being a group that is almost entirely liars - without ever showing evidence that the actual numbers are anywhere near what you initially claimed.

Are you being disingenous when you fail to understand why I object?

Being a trainer myself has nothing to do with it - I'd be as quick to object if someone claimed that 99.9% of the 'slaves' were frauds, and that is a group that I do not identify as being part of.

quote:

 
Cigarette smokers are decidedly in the minority.  I've never heard anyone claim that they were rare.

You do seem to love your loaded-but-undefined terms.

quote:

 
Now I'm being insulted.  Would you care to enlighten me on the significant difference between "99.9%" and "all"?  If you can't, you're guilty of the same behavior you're denying in this paragraph.

quote:

 
The point I was making (again, nicely edited) was that a good dominant is not necessarily a good trainer, and the common expectation that all dominants should (and are automatically capable of) training their own submissives is not necessarily so.

quote:

 
What this has to do with workshops in Minnesota, I have no idea

quote:

 
Are you, officially, recanting the "99.9%" that started this, and changing that to "majority"?  If so, we're done - that, and the use of the loaded terms you refuse to define, were my primary points of disagreement.

quote:

 
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. 

quote:

 
Um, nope - it's me, I just checked.  Is insult a typical tool in debate for you, or are you making an exception in my case?  Nor is something automatically wrong because you claim that Focus would have said it.  Nor is something automatically wrong just because Focus did say it - I'll debate ideas, but have no interest at all in debating personalities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline

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.

quote:

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?

quote:

Local community is good always.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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)

quote:

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

quote:

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

quote:

I have conducted training for groups for longer... and, I do not consider myself a "trainer".

quote:

If you consider this discussion a :"waste of time" then you should not have engaged in it -

quote:

Hubris is a wonderful thing.

quote:

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

quote:

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...

quote:

You were discussing accedidation and acceptance by others with Rover -

quote:

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.

quote:

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...

quote:

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)"

quote:

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.

quote:

As a 'trainer' - you should know where a statement may lead before you broach it and be prepared to respond accordingly.

quote:


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: MaryT

Don't care to address what I actually said then?  I have a hunch that most are smart enough not to pay for what will come naturally in a D/s relationship anyway.  Those who are not that bright probably need all the help they can get.  

quote:

I remain curious about how a dom would judge a submissive who thought it necessary to engage your services.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

quote:


<blink>  Yes, I understand that anyone can call themselves a top when the only painplay they've ever done was in a chat room, and call oneself a slave and never follow an order without argument (hoping for that ever-so delicious punishment, y'know) <...>

If the ironic tone doesn't come through in text, let me be perfectly clear on this point - in my opinion, roles such as top, bottom, dominant, submissive, and trainer all imply some level of skill - or should, at any rate.

You're fairly presumptive that all Tops engage in pain play, and that there's something wrong with SAM's (admittedly not my cup of tea, but no reason for me to condemn the lot of them as you have). 

quote:


On the other hand, identifying one's self as a "trainer" denotes an aptitude in the skill being trained, along with an affinity for teaching.  You have said so yourself. 

quote:

 

quote:


If a single reference is not enough for your standards, let's talk about what you think the minimum number of references should be - if I ever need  the services of a trainer for a skill I can't teach, I'll probably be quite happy to interview one of their graduates/students -  that'll likely be enough for me to judge whether or not I think they can do the job.

Given that "trainers" are not your average blokes (unless you're stating that they are), I would probably engage in the same vetting process employed by demos, workshops, and events across the country as it applies to presenters, who are also expected to be above average blokes in their field.

quote:

 
This is really quite a bit of filibuster to say that there's no way to tell whether a trainer actually has a command of the skill(s) they are teaching.  Which renders anyone's claims to be a "trainer" utterly meaningless.

quote:

 

quote:


For criteria on judging a trainer, I'll stick with what I've said already - find folks they've trained and judge the trainer by their product.

They are a product solely of their trainer?  Seriously, you don't expect anyone to buy that, do you?  There is no reliable way to determine whether the "product" is attributable to a "trainer", good upbringing, reading on the internet, or any other influence.

quote:

quote:

 
You have indeed made the point that anyone calling themselves a trainer is automatically suspect - here, you agree with my point that anyone calling themselves anything on the 'net does need to be checked before they're trusted.  However, you want impossible criteria for trainers - board certification of some sort, perhaps a history of attending workshops that don't exist or giving workshops (even if that's not a needful skill for a trainer, or anyone but a presenter).  You don't hold any other self-granted title to those standards - thus, my claim that you're using double standards, which you sidestepped pretty nicely.

"Trainers" claim to have a skill level and aptitude beyond the average Joe.

quote:

If that were not the case, then any average Joe would do as a "trainer" and even you are not making that outrageous assertion.

quote:

As a trainer, you're a victim of your own notariety, as your claims bring the glare of the spotlight upon you.  And as a trainer, I would expect that you would be familiar with this process, and not be so shocked or offended when it (naturally) occurs.  The "double standard" doesn't exist, given that the circumstances differ in this crucial aspect.

quote:

 

quote:


The nicely-trimmed context here was your assertion that training in a BDSM context would necessitate the student having control over the trainer - my point, nicely edited, was that this doesn't work in the 'nilla world, and shouldn't be expected to work in BDSM, either.

Do please have the courtesy of adressing the points I have made, rather than trying to change the subject.  Unless you simply can't

You made the analogy to Professors and Universities, not I.  And I notice that since the analogy rather disproves your argument, you're reduced to dropping it like a hot potato and crying "foul".

quote:

By any objective standard, that is synonymous with admitting you were in error.  No issue, though.  Even trainers make mistakes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: emdoub

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

I am honestly not trying to be agumentative but what you wrote only underlines my basic issue with the whole idea. Just because the trainer has a specific concept of how he wants HIS mail/bill paying scenario to play out does not mean that the next dominant said submissive/slave comes across with want anything vaguely similar. Then that sub/slave is right back to square one with the previous training being absolutely worthless.

quote:

I am honestly not trying to be augmentative but what you wrote only underlines my basic issue with the whole idea. Just because the trainer has a specific concept of how he wants HIS mail/bill paying scenario to play out does not mean that the next dominant said submissive/slave comes across with want anything vaguely similar. Then that sub/slave is right back to square one with the previous training being absolutely worthless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: emdoub

quote:

I remain curious about how a dom would judge a submissive who thought it necessary to engage your services.

If you want answers from those dominants who have collared my graduates for any reason better than idle curiousity, I could put you in touch with them.  I simply will not violate their privacy for idle curiousity, though. 

Others (Serenityy, grlwithboy, etc.) have chimed in to answer just that question - so why are you asking me?

Midnight Writer