quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

" do you see a difference between the fears we carry with us (fears of abandonment and displeasing our loved ones) dependent on something inspired by the dominant... or do you see them as something we carry with us no matter who are partner is? Just because an emotion exists in relation to someone does not necessarily mean they instilled this fear, does it? Although I am sure they can play on this fear that already existed and increase the insecurity of the submissive.

Hopefully I am not being confusing in what I am trying to convey

quote:

ORIGINAL: FukinTroll

I would rather be loved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: szobras

If it is far safer to be feared than loved, then I choose to live a bit more dangerously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExSteelAgain

However, of course, I’m going to come down on the love side as being more powerful, but I will go you one more. I think being a fun friend will trump fear in the long run even if it sounds milquetoast like.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
If people fear you, they do not trust you.  If they do not trust you, how can you trust them?  Where there is no trust, there is no relationship.  What would be the point of having slaves then?

quote:

I find it difficult to comprehend that both can't exist in some form or another within a D/s dynamic.  I believe as much as my slaves love me.. there is small corner of within their psyche that is reserved for fear.  They Fear to loose me.  As much as they know that I have a deep sense of love and devotion to them.  I wonder of they are not subconsciously aware that my emotions as strong and deep they may reside in me.. they have little control of me.. and that I have a deeper sense of control of those emotions.   I wonder if they see this part of me most when we play and I turn my sadistic pleasures upon them.  I wonder if somewhere they see this and have a residing Fear within... regardless if they are aware of it's presence or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

Ah, but would you believe him if you did not already trust him?  And would you trust him if you did not believe you could rely on him?  Anyone can say they will not do something... but we do not fully believe them until experience tells us we can rely upon what they have said.

I do not see the point that you are trying to make, many things go into trust.. first of all, the willingness of the person extending the trust to do so. The reliablility of the person one has extended their trust to plays a role. The past experiences of the person that is extending trust... from my experience.

I have over reacted to something recently because of my past baggage.. it had nothing to do with his reliablity. It had everything to do with my fears. So while I agree that reliability does indeed provide a foundation for trust.. it is only one component. Someone can be very reliable and trustworthy and still not be given the trust of someone else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

sorry szobras, I was responding to juliaoceania's last post when I made my last post (should have made that clear). I liked your post, a lot, btw.

Yes, I guess there is a difference between the intent of "discipline" and "punishment" . I don't respond particularly well to a wholly punitive attitude on a Dominant's part, I get hurt by it, in fact. I take it for granted most submissives want to please their Dominants (but I read threads where there appears to be "game-playing" going on, sometimes - not this one). 

I do read of Dominant's who think their "communication skills" are just fine, who seem to jump to a conclusion a submissive did something just to displease them, when it certainly seems possible they were unclear about their expectations, instead.

This kind of thing probably, IMO does not much to increase "trust" between a submissive and a Dominant (especially presuming the Dominant is supposed to be "taking responibility for the relationship", etc. On the other hand, there can also be "gamey" submissives. So I suppose communication is key. If either cannot admit there is a possibility they could be wrong (if one exists), than the person has a maturity and-or ego problem, or just bad of "off" judgment. Anyone can make a mistake, though.

Submissives can certainly (purposely or not) mis-interpret what it is a Dominant is really expecting from them.

It scared me a little today, when I read the thread about the guy who wanted to impose "rules" on his submissive, so his "rule" was "Respect and care for others" Well hell - how is she going to know she broke that one? Is it fair to impose consequences for something so vaguely worded? What does respect mean? What does care mean - to him?

And if he's not detailing it, he's not controlling her behavior - he's relying on the value-system she brought with her into the relationship (and maybe he doesn't care, maybe he thinks it's fine the way it is, and doesn't need to change). But I wouldn't say he is imposing a "rule" in anyone with something this vaguely worded.

Can he detail what he means, or is this just going to turn into a game of "catch the submissive" doing something "bad"? And how "bad" can it be, if she didn't know it and didn't agree to submit to a rule she didn't know she was breaking in the first place? By reading his mind?

I suppose if you know someone well, then you can guess what would tick them off. But he was inquiring how to make (or whether) to make "rules" for a submissive, so that was good as an inquiry from him, IMO. You cannot submit to something you are not aware exists, though.

I said, if "rules" are not going to be clear and specific, w/disclipline that follows, why bother with them? Otherwise, IMO, it's an illusion making any is creating any "control" over anyone, or that anyone else is "submitting" to that supposed "control"  

Because people's value-systems vary. If they don't, well then, you don't really need any "rules" do you? To "guide" anyone's behavior? It is just a question of whether you want to try to do so, or not, or not, by imposing "rules". And how much, and how often. Individual judgment call, I suppose re: this last.

Rules ("guidelines" even, call them what you will) insinuate "control". I see "control" as the crux of bdsm activity. Some people want more rules (or to impose more rules) some want less. Fine. But - IMO "I'll-make-it-up-as-I-go-along" "dominance" doesn't (to me) seem all that fair to a submissive whose every intent is to please a Dominant (unless he is a Sadist maybe, which is fine, if she knows that).

Sadists and masochists are both self-described, but I tend to try to take them at their word if I ask some questions of them first. Some people might want to toy with that kind of feeling a bit more in their relationship. IMO, if they do, they should consider pairing up w/a Sadist (and find out what the sadist thinks of as "sadistic", too).

- Susan 

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

I see Padriag's point: To me it means, that if a Dominant continually "safely" pushes a submissive's limits (open to interpretation, can mean he didn't kill her of course, and anything less severe than that as well, probably, depends on who you're talking to), then her trust she can rely on his word grows. Or at least it can increase the potential for that, if she has "past baggage." The key to building trust is being reliable, as a Dominant,and something that can grow or decrease, depending on whether he is reliable, regardless, sometimes, of the intensity of what he is doing to a submissive, perhaps, as long as he can successfully guage when it's wise to stop.Knowing when it would be wise is what increases a submissive's trust, if "pushing their limits."

quote:

But I don't think that always has to have a bad connotation, and I think its been misunderstood by some. I think becoming mesmerized by someone's charm, and the trust they can induce in someone who is submitting to them, to want to "go further" for them, and to please them, could in fact be such a heady, arousing experience it could be extremely beautiful, even if very painful and it pushes someone's limits to almost ends they think they cannot bear, maybe (and maybe very well via fear, as well as initial or ongoing, charm).

I can't see how this is hard for anyone to believe, really, since less "sadistic" Dominants appear to operate (to me) in much the same manner frequently, given the bdsm context in which we all operate (generally) - the world of bdsm - which I do think includes painful experiences, with an intensity of varying degree; which form a basis for bdsm activity in many, many instances.

And in some cases, I think this might even become addictive for the submissive, as well as the Dominant, and it's very possible to truly become engulfed (yet aware) of the beauty of wanting to do that for someone (which is why the Dominant would indeed need to know what they are doing, and the submissive to be as honest as possible as far as her responses, if she is not totally zoned by it) to insure nobody ends up irrevocably injured in a way not intended).

Neither do I think these folks who are submitting (or even becoming highly satisfied) in these instances are always hard-core masochists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

It's interesting as this thread goes on to see that there are dominants who feel that fear has no place in a loving D/s relationship or even in a non-loving D/s relationship and that there are also dominants who feel...like I do...that love and fear can exist together in a D/s relationship.

One thing I am observing...and please, other dominants who feel that fear CAN also be present, correct me if I am wrong...is that those who do feel that fear can exist in the equation do not feel it best that the fear be of the dominant themselves but rather, that it be of varying actions which might be taken by the dominant orrrrrr, of certain thoughts the dominant might have.  And that none of these so far involve such actions as abandonment, isolation, or abusive behavior.  I know they don't for me when I speak of the type of fear I have used and as noted, I haven't seen them in play by other dominants who also have fear in place in a D/s relationship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Do you fear losing your girls? If a dominant fears losing his submissive, is she somehow in control over him?

quote:


I ask this because I believe all human beings fear losing people that are important to them, even if they are able to control how they display that fear. It also goes back to what I said earlier,... just because a fear exists does not mean it has anything to do with the dominant, or a tool he is using  to control his submissive. The fear of losing someone is something innate to us all. I fear losing my UM, my mother, my siblings, and I fear losing my dom too. That fear only becomes a tool if the dominant utilizes it, correct?