Performance based D/s (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

Gemeni -> Performance based D/s (2/20/2005 6:07:05 AM)

I decided to try a topic about something I don't seem to see being practiced terribly much these days. Domination and submission dynamics based on performance,vis a vis service.

One of the first things I look for in a real life slave is the degree of skill and usefulness she has to offer me in everyday life. Sex,play, et all...come far down the list of qualifications in the list after that.

But mention that you use that as a primary qualification,and it seems many react as if you had just shot the Pope. Where is the romance,where is the excitement! Yadda yadda yadda.......

From my personal experience that is still there,but one actually stablizes the dynamic more by stressing the structure before that. Usually when I see these things based on more of a boyfriend/girlfriend sort of thing, they unravel very quickly as soon as people get bored with the sex parts.

What is your take on D/s as a performance dynamic?



RiotGirl -> RE: Performance based D/s (2/20/2005 6:46:05 AM)

Access Denied



ShiftedJewel -> RE: Performance based D/s (2/20/2005 6:46:25 AM)

quote:

One of the first things I look for in a real life slave is the degree of skill and usefulness she has to offer me in everyday life. Sex,play, et all...come far down the list of qualifications in the list after that.


I completely agree. How realistic is to be expect to be "locked in a cage" all the time? I want someone that can work beside me or on their own with out me standing over them with a whip. I want someone that can answer the door or phone, make coffee or serve dinner... boring as all hell, ain't it?

IMO the M/s relationship should be based on all of the elements of day to day life, not just sex and play. I want them to feel owned emotionally, mentally and physically but that doesn't mean I want romance. I'm not looking for a boyfriend/girlfriend. Service comes first in my book. Granted I am poly and I have my romance in the form of my husband. But that doesn't and shouldn't take away from the fact that I/we insist on someone that is service oriented first, pleasure second.

This is not a fantasy, it is real life for many of us. Even a "bedroom" sub/slave has duties they must attend to daily. As I tell many, there is life outside the dungeon/bedroom, I have one and expect them to as well... if you think coming here means you're going to be led around naked on a leash 24/7, played with all the time.... move on, I'm more realistic then that.

Jewel



LordODiscipline -> RE: Performance based D/s (2/20/2005 7:11:38 AM)

Personally, I agree with you.

Of late there appears to be an undercurrent of the romanticism of leather in such a way that the power dynamic is skewed in favor of a 'submissive's rights' (a misnomer if ever there was one).

But, (and, please understand) - this is not being promulgated strictly as a 'submissive thing'. I have been railed by dominants (real life and on-line) for stating that I do not agree with these alleged requisites for a viable BDSM relational dynamic. That I do not believe in allowing a submissive complete control or 'say' in the relationship has been characterized as "abuse" in some quarters.

Although the issue is more than we might engender through this short forum approach - I find that there is a cultural shift that demands some attention and discussion beyond simple 'sound bites'.

An interesting aside, many of the authorization for this cultural shift in this direction comes from such pablumatic sites as Castle Realm and short unrealistic blurbs such as "A Dominant's Responsibility" and "A Submissive's Rights".

Apparently the longevity of 'on line idioms' such as these is becoming an untenable reality and insupportable fantastic ideal for many.

~J



Gemeni -> RE: Performance based D/s (2/20/2005 8:05:14 AM)

Thank you for the intelligent replies.

I do think that the so called "'soft sites" like Castle Realm, do D/s a disservice in seeking to make this dynamic more about romance, in a very vanilla fashion. Which to us more hard line sorts, does seem like a perversion of the entire intent to a more or less ridiculous degree.

I laughed when I first began talking to a lifestyle Mistress way back when.. She, like Myself, takes a more practical approach in her "filtering" methods to seperate the subs from bottomy sorts. She simply required that they do housework for her, for a trial period of time. No play or sex was involved. Period,you pushed her on it,you were gone.

No what was amusing is that many would come to her professing thier DEEP desire to be of service,but most couldn't take a couple of weekends of simple chores! Much less the three months she required..... I even heard one of the washouts complaining about how he felt taken advantage of by her. I just looked at him, and replied, "No pain,no gain buddy! Three weeks of not getting YOUR way, and you quit?"

"I guess you WERE just looking for a service top! You want fries with your "MacDommes" order?"

But let's face it,when the rubber hits the road, and the fantasy turns into a reality involving WORK...... The tough get going, the weak *fade away*. Anyone can talk the talk,walking the walk is quite a different matter.



ShiftedJewel -> RE: Performance based D/s (2/20/2005 8:24:42 AM)

quote:

Although the issue is more than we might engender through this short forum approach - I find that there is a cultural shift that demands some attention and discussion beyond simple 'sound bites'.


I completely agree with you and I have to wonder how much of it was caused by a lack of mentoring for Dominants and submissives alike? It seems like in todays "new and improved" BDSM that for a Dominant to ask for mentoring comes across as a weakness rather then a desire to learn.

Jewel



Jasmyn -> RE: Performance based D/s (2/20/2005 8:29:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gemeni

Thank you for the intelligent replies.

I do think that the so called "'soft sites" like Castle Realm, do D/s a disservice in seeking to make this dynamic more about romance, in a very vanilla fashion. Which to us more hard line sorts, does seem like a perversion of the entire intent to a more or less ridiculous degree.

I laughed when I first began talking to a lifestyle Mistress way back when.. She, like Myself, takes a more practical approach in her "filtering" methods to seperate the subs from bottomy sorts. She simply required that they do housework for her, for a trial period of time. No play or sex was involved. Period,you pushed her on it,you were gone.

No what was amusing is that many would come to her professing thier DEEP desire to be of service,but most couldn't take a couple of weekends of simple chores! Much less the three months she required..... I even heard one of the washouts complaining about how he felt taken advantage of by her. I just looked at him, and replied, "No pain,no gain buddy! Three weeks of not getting YOUR way, and you quit?"

"I guess you WERE just looking for a service top! You want fries with your "MacDommes" order?"

But let's face it,when the rubber hits the road, and the fantasy turns into a reality involving WORK...... The tough get going, the weak *fade away*. Anyone can talk the talk,walking the walk is quite a different matter.


Gemeni thank you for opening up such a can of worms ;)

I currently have two boys serving Me...in seven months I think I've played with one of them three times, and the other in four months of service he has yet to see Me (apart from a meeting four years ago). Both of them know they have to prove themselves and for varying reasons neither have being able to quite make it into Mistress's inner sanctum though each waits with baited breath to be allowed.

Does it make Me a bitch? A cow? to be so flippant or indifferent to their needs? Maybe but that is how I play the game and if they can't play fetch for My amusement for as long as it amuses Me to do so, then I can only assume they haven't quite worked it out...it's not about them...its about Me.

Jasmyn



krikket -> RE: Performance based D/s (2/20/2005 8:38:19 AM)

I'm going to take a stab at responding to this one, since i agree with what you're saying here, as I've also noticed this lack. My observation, however, is that it isn't romance getting in the way so much people using the D/s "call letters" for a little bit of kinky sex and a throw away relationship. Now, please don't get me wrong..i like the kinky sex part as well as the next "person", but i'm also a service submissive. i now call myself a bedroom sub simply because it seems closer to what most understand and are looking for. If, early on in getting to know someone, i mention that i'm a service submissive i get this blank stare, and then this look of "bingo, oral sex"!!! LOL i read someplace that service isn't one big thing, it's a thousand little things, which is a concept some people seem to have difficulty grasping. Yes, i'd like more, where the D/s is a staple of the relationship, where it touches even the most vanilla aspects of life and where service, too, is an ingredient in the mix. i just don't think that it's going to happen with me.

However, i don't think service or strictly bdsm style relationships preclude romance. It can in fact, (should be?) a component of D/s, just as rituals and commitment. i don't want a one-sided (anything) relationship - just sex (even kinky), just service, just vanilla, just one of whatever sounds pretty darn boring to me, and doesn't seem to encourage growth. Romance, or service, or the other variables that constitute a relationship are what make us unique in our coupleness, make us (imho) whole, and in general make life a whole lot more fun.

jimini



quote:

ORIGINAL: Gemeni

I decided to try a topic about something I don't seem to see being practiced terribly much these days. Domination and submission dynamics based on performance,vis a vis service.

One of the first things I look for in a real life slave is the degree of skill and usefulness she has to offer me in everyday life. Sex,play, et all...come far down the list of qualifications in the list after that.

But mention that you use that as a primary qualification,and it seems many react as if you had just shot the Pope. Where is the romance,where is the excitement! Yadda yadda yadda.......

From my personal experience that is still there,but one actually stablizes the dynamic more by stressing the structure before that. Usually when I see these things based on more of a boyfriend/girlfriend sort of thing, they unravel very quickly as soon as people get bored with the sex parts.

What is your take on D/s as a performance dynamic?




EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Performance based D/s (2/20/2005 8:39:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gemeni

What is your take on D/s as a performance dynamic?


I think it's the essence of being owned property- you're either useful or you are not. If you're not useful and doing what you are supposed to do, then you aren't fit to be owned.

Now, romance is certainly nice, and there's no reason you can't have love involved as well, but the entire system of punishment and reward is based on behavior, actions, reactions and performance.

Slaves are to be trained to act and react appropriately. If they can't perform adequately, there's no point to being an owned slave. Doesn't mean they are worthless or not at all useful or might make some people very happy, just that they aren't useful as a slave.



songbird26 -> RE: Performance based D/s (2/20/2005 10:51:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EmeraldSlave2

I think it's the essence of being owned property- you're either useful or you are not. If you're not useful and doing what you are supposed to do, then you aren't fit to be owned.



This is a *fascinating* thread! Thank you very much, Gemeni.

I think there's something of a disconnect here between expectations and reality, on more than a 'bedroom sub vs. service slave' level. In ANY relationship, if you're not useful and doing what you're supposed to do, at whatever that level is, then you're not contributing to the relationship in a positive way. For some people, that's cleaning the house. For others, it's yielding the body to the demands of another. For others, it's understanding the needs of the person being controlled and helping them grow towards a more fulfilled and complete state of submission, however that might be achieved. And I think it's a little misleading to state that ANY relationship is "all about me." It takes two to tango: if the submissive is "all about the dominant", and is blissfully happy in that state, then really, it's all about the sub, too, only in a backhanded way. *grin*

And, if one party really IS completely and utterly focused on themselves to the exclusion of all other considerations, no matter which side of the whip they're on? Then the other would be an idiot not to walk. That's not dominance or submission, it's just selfishness. "Owned slave" or not--and that's a debate for another time--people aren't furniture. Even animals require feedback, interaction, reinforcement both positive and negative in order to learn and grow and change.

I'm a big fan of people accepting personal responsibility for their lives, so I believe that it is the submissive's responsibility--as much as the dominant's!--to make sure that the relationship they find and enter into is the right and correct one for themselves. They might give up all or most decision making afterwards, but that's the big one. Every person is different. Every D/s dynamic must therefore also be different. Saying that I'm not interested in finding a dominant who simply and only needs a housekeeper or dishwasher or manicurist--because I know that that would be a destructive and miserable position for me, given my own personality and needs--doesn't make me less of a submissive or more of a "fake" or any other such thing. It simply means that I've worked hard to understand myself, and that therefore I think my odds of finding a successful D/s relationship, where service and romance and vanilla life and the real world can all blend harmoniously, are much, much improved.

Somewhere out there is a domme looking for an unpaid houseboy, and a sub who desperately needs to be an unpaid houseboy, and hopefully they'll find each other. Doesn't make 'em better or worse or more or less than anyone else, just makes 'em different.



Gemeni -> RE: Performance based D/s (2/20/2005 12:26:00 PM)

Touche` songbird.

And anyone who thinks a Dominant doesn't need to perform up to spec has another fantasy going on,grins..........

After all,there is no such things as selfless service is there? One must at the least,Dominate to be worthy of it in turn!



domtimothy46176 -> RE: Performance based D/s (2/20/2005 1:47:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gemeni

I decided to try a topic about something I don't seem to see being practiced terribly much these days. Domination and submission dynamics based on performance,vis a vis service.

One of the first things I look for in a real life slave is the degree of skill and usefulness she has to offer me in everyday life. Sex,play, et all...come far down the list of qualifications in the list after that.

But mention that you use that as a primary qualification,and it seems many react as if you had just shot the Pope. Where is the romance,where is the excitement! Yadda yadda yadda.......

From my personal experience that is still there,but one actually stablizes the dynamic more by stressing the structure before that. Usually when I see these things based on more of a boyfriend/girlfriend sort of thing, they unravel very quickly as soon as people get bored with the sex parts.

What is your take on D/s as a performance dynamic?


I've touched on this before but I'll expand on it here. Our dynamic is based on service. My girl was searching for the opportunity to serve, first, foremost and exclusively. My focus was on a service-oriented submissive.

The meaning of service varies from individual to individual, but the underlying emphasis on performance should always be there, IMO. In our case, my girl possesses skills which I find to be useful and has learned others at my direction. She has expectations of performance for herself that usually exceed my requirements. She measures her success based on her own criteria above and beyond my satisfaction with her efforts.

Although we have come to share many interests in our time together, our relationship as master of the house and servant remains our primary and ruling dynamic. I feel a great deal of love for her, I might be in love with her. I have introduced her to sensual pleasures and S&M play and use her body for my own gratification. We enjoy the most amazingly intense conversations about various and diverse topics. At no point, however, do any of these extracurricular activities supercede the underlying structure.

I think that performance-based D/s has a simple elegance that is mistaken for cold sterility by those who approach D/s from a more romantic vantage point. There is no lack of excitement or satisfaction in our dynamic. It is gratifying on an entirely different level than pure romance, but it's even deeper and more meaningful for us.
Timothy



RosaB -> RE: Performance based D/s (2/20/2005 2:55:38 PM)

What a great thread. It definately has given me food for thought. I've sort of backed off the whole idea of finding a match for myself for now, primarily because it seems to me that most that I've encountered offer up the world, but really have no intentions of delivering it past one to three encounters.

I believe many of the ideas talked about here would be most useful. Espescially, having a trial period of service performance (non sexual) without any play. I've had trial periods but nothing to the extent of longer than a month. Two or more months of having someone doing basic task sounds like a great way to weed out, those that only seek the play aspects of d/s.

Rosa



Gemeni -> RE: Performance based D/s (2/20/2005 3:38:11 PM)

The biggest problem with trial periods is that very few DOMINANTS have enough self control to stick that long a period out as well.

But for those I have seen do it,the rewards are great. What it really does is show strength, and it creates a deeper bond later on.

One always recalls how a thing began,and I think that showing a focus on a connection between minds,rather than just bodies......

Certainly proves which one you value the most.



ProtagonistLily -> RE: Performance based D/s (2/20/2005 4:02:30 PM)

quote:

But, (and, please understand) - this is not being promulgated strictly as a 'submissive thing'. I have been railed by dominants (real life and on-line) for stating that I do not agree with these alleged requisites for a viable BDSM relational dynamic. That I do not believe in allowing a submissive complete control or 'say' in the relationship has been characterized as "abuse" in some quarters


Horsefeathers. I agree with you on this one LOD.

Lily



alpha1 -> RE: Performance based D/s (2/28/2005 11:54:44 PM)

Hello All

This thread has opened a door for me.
I am very pleased to see this discussion take place.
One thing I have noticed is the trend for new subs to flock to a master and then turn cold after a very short time.
There are to many posts declaring that subs are subs not doormats and meatholes etc.
I agree with this totaly.
But there are way to many folks out there declaring themselfs as subs when they are not even close to knowing the meaning of the word.
This I would blame on the fact that to many doms do not take the time to properly train a sub.
Strapping someone to a horse or to a wall and beating them is not training it is infliction of punishment.
True service has to be built on a foundation.
In my opinion training a sub begins with the most mundane chores. I have the best waxed car in town.
There are also issues in regards to manors, decorum, attitude, learning to take voice commands, how to read a masters wishes in advance of him/her telling you what to do. ETC ETC.

Romance is a hard issue to deal with.
As a trainer i have on occasion had a sub fall in love with me and ask to be kept on instead of being returned to her true master.
This can be heartbreaking even for a trainer. It proves that a lot of D/s relationships are not built on what they should be.

Simply put for a sub to feel free to to give you total service there has to be some form of nurturing and care givin to there development.

Not all Doms are looking for love but most subs will need to show some form of affection to the master as part of their devotion and loyalty.
Doms that miss this aspect of the subs life or ignore it take the risk of mising out on the true D/s expierience.

Not all Doms are good trainers some lack the time others lack the skill to teach.
They may be the perfect master for a more trained sub but teaching basic skills eludes them.
(Thats why there are trainers out there)
please let me know what you think
Alpha1



GrandpaLash -> RE: Performance based D/s (3/1/2005 2:05:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alpha1


One thing I have noticed is the trend for new subs to flock to a master and then turn cold after a very short time.

Alpha1


Er ..... are you talking in personal or general terms? Either way, I have to raise the question, if so many subs are turning cold so quickly, maybe the fault isn't entirely with the subs?

Grandpa Lash



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Performance based D/s (3/1/2005 8:10:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: krikket
My observation, however, is that it isn't romance getting in the way so much people using the D/s "call letters" for a little bit of kinky sex and a throw away relationship.


It seems to me that the core problem is that people use the D/s letters to cover four types of distinct relationships:

1) "Dictionary" Dominant/submissive relationships. The dom is dominant, the sub submits. No service, no ownership, no ritual, no love. These are what many people call the "kinky" players.

2) Owner/property relationships. This is the "dictionary" Master/slave relationship, where the slave considers herself property, and the Owner can do with her as he pleases. There need not be love, though it is not uncommon for it to be there.

3) Master/servant relationships. These are the relationships where "service" bottoms serve out of need, and they do not expect anything in reward other than the chance to serve. These are often non-sexual in nature, and rarely involve love.

4) Love based dominance/submission. This is the relationship sought by those looking for the "one". The bottoms "submit" to a top, but they must love the top, and usually have a rather long list of demands the top must meet (monogamy, long term commitment, etc) before they will even consider submitting.

Most relationships blend a bit from the four categories, but there are some that gravitate toward the 1st and the 4th exclusively (with quite a bit of conflict about who is misusing the letters).

Taggard



Alexander -> RE: Performance based D/s (3/1/2005 8:44:26 AM)

This thread is a plot to keep me from getting any work done.

Taggard. think about the examples you wrote just now and try to plot out howthey might be stages of progression?

Ive got too much to say on this topic and am dying to go scan the slave diaries looking for something anyway. I think I can sum up how much I can relate to this post in one example.

I contacted one of the local girls from collarme. her profile seemed to describe me and what I want out of life. The romance part gemini was talking about was there too. I wrote her letter of introduction. It was formal and personal and took a little piece of me to write.

Her response was, paraphrased I had a date with someone else and am giving up my search I won't be forced to do anything. Profile deleted.

Its all about archetypes. Mythologies brought out over time. A person discovers bdsm and goes to the literature and discovers a writer whos writing about these mythologies and archetypes (and doesnt know it) and it gets into their own ideas of what they want. The romantic love slave archetype varies in as many degrees as our lifestyle does. The more new people we get (god bless them) the more we are going to see this.

Alex.



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Performance based D/s (3/1/2005 8:56:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alexander
Taggard. think about the examples you wrote just now and try to plot out howthey might be stages of progression?


I think that viewing them as a progression is a very tempting, but inaccurate (at least for me) way to view the 4 types of BDSM relationships I listed. In my own experiece, I started at strictly 4 and have moved to really focusing on 2 and 3, with occasional forays into 1. I have progressed to the point where I have no desire for 4 at all.

Taggard



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.076172E-02