RE: Desire (Full Version)

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



Message

curiouspet55 -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 9:07:06 PM)

Alrighty, this may be jumbled but I'm going to try to be clear...

As a submissive, I still have wants and desires. I need to have food, sleep, and a place to live. Those are my basic needs. I need to be safe from permament and severe personal injury, whether emotional or physical. I need there to be love in my relationship to be fulfilled from it. Those are my needs. I desire many other things, but those are the things that have to be there, must be fulfilled.

Do I expect and want my desires to be fulfilled? Yes. When I'm searching for a Dominant, I am looking for one who gets his pleasure from pleasing me, as I get mine from pleasing him. I submit to him, he decides how I get my pleasure, what pleases him. I obey, I surrender. But, in that surrender, we both gain pleasure, both of our desires are being fulfilled.

I believe that in D/s, just like in any other relationship, the two (or however many) participants are partners, there to help each other be the best they can be, to help one another grow, love one another, and make one another as happy as possible. I only need certain things to be in a relatively content, living state, but to be happy I need to have my desires fulfilled as well. D/s is a power exchange, but I personally am not of the belief that just because I am submissive my wants are not to be met, my happiness is not to be taken into consideration, my pleasure is to be ignored. I think we are both deserving of these things - it is how these things come about that separate a D/s relationship from a vanilla one.

This is my personal interpretation of the situation. I think that everyone has their own view on this subject, and rightfully so - just like with every other aspect of this lifestyle. People have different, unique and wonderful personalities, and because we are not the same, nor are any two submissive's submission the same. We all have a different definition of what is a want and what is a need, determined by our upbringings. We all need different things, that is why we have different limits. It isn't about what is right, what is wrong, whether or not we should all be having our needs met - we will never agree on what needs to me met. What is important is that you find the one for you (the "right" Dom or sub) who shares your definitions, who has the same desires and needs.

Hope that made some sense...
cp55



hisannabelle -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 9:20:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: curiouspet55
I think we are both deserving of these things - it is how these things come about that separate a D/s relationship from a vanilla one.


i don't know if i exactly agree with your viewpoint, but this sentence sums up a lot of my own feelings about this subject. thanks for an amazingly well-written (and not jumbled at all!) and insightful post. :) (i've quite enjoyed seeing you around the boards.)



MsParados -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 9:20:24 PM)

On the other side of that

If every time submission came up in conflict to my desires, than yes I would wonder about the level of commitment to that dynamic and that applies to myself as well. Lets be honest if we treated our Dom/mes as a burden and our responsiblities within that dynamic as an inconvience, we'd be falling into a catagory reserved for "vanilla" women. His needs may conflict with my desires but because they are a need they are more importent at that moment, because as far as I see them in my relationship, it he desires something than I need to do it.



catize -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 9:26:06 PM)

quote:

 *chuckles* Apparently. I guess we are in the same boat.


Maybe we should each take an oar and beat those unseemly thoughts out of each other?  (Considers the fact that master would probably enjoy watching that)[:D]



hisannabelle -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 9:27:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsParados

On the other side of that

If every time submission came up in conflict to my desires, than yes I would wonder about the level of commitment to that dynamic and that applies to myself as well. Lets be honest if we treated our Dom/mes as a burden and our responsiblities within that dynamic as an inconvience, we'd be falling into a catagory reserved for "vanilla" women. His needs may conflict with my desires but because they are a need they are more importent at that moment, because as far as I see them in my relationship, it he desires something than I need to do it.


this is also very true. i think a lot of this has to do with the concept of delayed gratification, or higher gratification, rather than immediate gratification. for example, if aquatic were to continue playing her game instead of doing what she was told, she'd be pursuing immediate gratification, but the act of giving up something that might be an immediate "i want" fulfills something higher within her. (i'm using her example because i think it was a good one.) i certainly don't expect to enjoy every command i'm given, but i do it, and i enjoy that it pleases Him...and because i do it willingly, and i submit to Him willingly, i couldn't imagine treating His desires like a burden - why bother being submissive at all, then? i think it's important for the growth of the relationship that the dominant consider the submissive's desires, wants, and pleasure, but that's true of any relationship - as curiouspet mentioned, and as someone else (or a few someones) may have also said in another way in a previous post...for a lot of people the difference from a vanilla relationship in this aspect is the way these desires are fulfilled. it's a desire (not a need) of mine to get a phd in religion. He doesn't -have- to permit me to do it. He does because He knows it's what fulfills me career-wise, and that makes me a healthier person and a healthier submissive. would i fault Him if He denied me that, perhaps so we could settle down sooner or something like that? no...although i think His encouragement to fulfill this desire is one of the things that allows growth within our relationship. just another example.



curiouspet55 -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 9:27:58 PM)

Thank you :)...sometimes I wonder, as I confuse myself at times. Good to know it wasn't that jumbled up.

And, to MsParados - I can see your point as well. If we have differing wants and needs, I would put his first - though I would question why I was with him if we had such different wants and needs. However, just because something isn't a want of mine, if it is a want of his I would do my best to fulfill it. I would hope he would take into consideration doing the same for me. As an example, lets say he enjoys caning and I don't - I may not enjoy it, but as it doesn't violate any of my needs, and is one of his wants, I would do it. However, if I enjoy spanking and he doesn't, than he wouldn't have to do that, though I would think occasionally he might as a reward. My point was that if I really really enjoy spanking, I would be looking for someone else who enjoys spanking, that way we both enjoy doing those things together, two sides of the same coin type of deal.



AquaticSub -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 9:38:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsParados

On the other side of that

If every time submission came up in conflict to my desires, than yes I would wonder about the level of commitment to that dynamic and that applies to myself as well. Lets be honest if we treated our Dom/mes as a burden and our responsiblities within that dynamic as an inconvience, we'd be falling into a catagory reserved for "vanilla" women. His needs may conflict with my desires but because they are a need they are more importent at that moment, because as far as I see them in my relationship, it he desires something than I need to do it.


My point was more that being a submissive is not all glitz and glamour so to speak. We don't always get that warm "yay we get to serve now!" feeling. It's not easy - nor is being a dominant. It's frustrating and it's hard at times, but it's quite worth the effort.



AquaticSub -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 9:41:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

quote:

 *chuckles* Apparently. I guess we are in the same boat.


Maybe we should each take an oar and beat those unseemly thoughts out of each other?  (Considers the fact that master would probably enjoy watching that)[:D]


Valyraen's only response to that is go "Peep! Peep!". I think that translates into amused, confused, and possibly vaguely aroused. But I'm not sure...

However, my response is wonder: Can we get permission to skip the oars and jello-wrestle the unseemly thoughts out instead? [:D]



MsParados -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 9:45:52 PM)

Which is really why it is so importent we get to know someone on so many different levels if we want any hope of having a LTR. I totally agree with both you (annabelle and pet55) I sometimes think of myself as spoiled at times..... Because of Daddys' hardwork I could take my desire to finish my education and turn it into a need. It is about balance and benefit, it is human nature to want to feel appreicated and fullfilled with our lifestyle choices. I would never wantto feel as if I was an option, less importent or out right neglected because then I would rebel and act out which only causes more heart ache and confusion, moving on to anger and then the destruction of all that was good in myself and my part of the dynamic. Just like sucking a Dom/me dry trying to make them jump through hoops to fullfill our fantasies or unrealistic expectation of what a Dom/me may be, would leave them just as empty and resentful.
Without a doubt Aquatic, we are all human after all. Nothing is easy all the time and anything worth having comes with hardwork and dedication. There is always a choice, the easy way or the hard way, other wise it would just be the way. I think that anyone that finds themselvs in this lifestyle must naturally be drawn to the hard way lol but that says something about our character... jmho



losttreasure -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 11:28:44 PM)

I wish that I had the time right now to address all the comments made here, but as I'm just a few days away from moving across the country and getting behind schedule...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

I simply cannot fathom placing myself... and all of that which makes me who I am, including my needs, my wants and my desires... at his feet and expecting him to "make it happen".

Then why this thread, why this question at all?  If you do not feel that the dominant is responsible for meeting all your desires (and I found it interesting you threw needs in with desires above), then why the objection when they say it is not their responsibility to do so?  You seem to be holding dominants to quite the double standard.  On the one hand you seem to be saying you are capable and responsible for fulfilling your own desires... and then with the other hand you reach out expecting, and placing the obligation on, the dominant to provide for your desires for you.  Which is it, because you will find few dominants worthy of the appelation would tolerate your trying to have it both ways.


First, please understand that my opening remarks and question were of a general nature intended to provoke thought and gain insight... not as a representation of my own relationship.  It doesn't really matter how many dominants exist who would tolerate anything I do; since I belong to FirmhandKY, his preferences are what matter to me.

For what it is worth, yes... I am perfectly capable of attempting to fulfill my own desires, and until such time as he removes it from me, the responsibility rests squarely on my own shoulders.

The quoted statement above, however, does reflect my own views of submission.  I personally do not even consider submission without compatibility, but when I do consent to submit, it is an offer... what he accepts is up to him.  I do not dictate to him what he will and will not take responsibility for and when.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

I think what bothers me is so frequently hearing this behavior modification tool (one that can be very effective if used judiciously and sparingly) spoken of as a standard way of life in D/s.  My first impression is that these dominants don't have any other methods in their "bag of tricks" to elicite cooperation other than by dangling a carrot. 

If you have a problem with being controlled, I suggest you find a relationship where that's not part of the deal.  Power exchange relationships are predicated on the control of one person over another.  What did you think that control meant... that you only obeyed when you felt like it?  That you only served in whatever ways amused you?  That you could behave however you pleased?  Where is the control in any of that?  That a dominant exerts control over the behavior of the submissive is the nature of the thing.


I'm not really sure where your comments have any relation to what I said, but I suspect you took them as a personal affront and felt the need to retaliate against me. 

If you will read carefully the entirety of what I wrote in that section, you will see that I did not imply that a dominant should not control.  What I did was essentially lament that declarations such as "a submissive's wants and desires are irrelevant" appear to feed stereotypes. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

I would suspect that a dominant who never granted any of the desires of a submissive, not even as a reward, would likely find themselves without a submissive at some point.


quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

I agree and I suspect that is why we see so much frustration and so many failed relationships.


While true you might also equally lay blame at "submissives" who are disobedient, dishonest, spoilled, lazy, indolent, impetuous and non-commital.  That some relationships fail because dominants act unwisely or worse is not in dispute.  That some relationships fail because the submissive behaved badly seems to be being overlooked as this thread turns into yet another excuse to blame everything on the dominant while at the same time expecting everything of the dominant.


If this thread had been about failed relationships, equal blame would have been laid at the feet of deserving submissives, as well.  But acknowledging a submissive's culpability in no way lessens a dominant's guilt; they would both be wrong... but each are not less wrong simply because they share the blame. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

So, Padriag... you do feel it's both healthy and advisable that a submissive have some expectations... including, as alluded to in your statement, expectations to have desires granted?


I would not have a submissive who had no desires to better herself, no interests or pursuits of her own.  I would not have a submissive who behaved as a mindless animal... for such a thing would be a poor companion to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

If she does have those expectations and you agree to enter into a relationship with her, then doesn't that mean you assume some obligation to try to meet them?


No... and here lies the crux of your misunderstanding and double standard.  I confront her with reality, that if she wants something she must work for it like the rest of us.  If she wants to better her education, then she must work at that.  If she wants me to grant a desire, then she will have to earn it.

This is the same reality of life the dominant faces, excepting that we can expect no one to grant us anything.


I'll accept responsibility here for using the word "granted" in this first question... dominants aren't genies who grant wishes.  It's not a word I favor, but I utilized it to mirror your original use of it. 

I agree... a dominant (or anyone else) can't be expected to grant anything and we do have to work for what we want in life. 

But that doesn't mean there isn't any obligation.

If a dominant knows and requires that a submissive has desires and pursuits of her own, then assumes control of her to the extent that he can deny, hinder or facilitate those things, then he does have a responsibility to take them into consideration.  They may not be a priority, but they aren't irrelevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

What I find flatly offensive is this notion that a submissive may place upon the dominant the expectation and burden of fulfilling her desires... for free, that he is obligated to provide them at her whim.  It smacks of exactly how spoiled, lazy and petulant much of this world has become.


While I don't disagree with you and this really has been a fascinating discussion, I don't believe my OP said anything about a dominant being expected to fulfill desires. 

If anything, it was more about an assumption that submissives, by virtue of relinquishing control, automatically agree to having their desires disregarded.



marieToo -> RE: Desire (3/7/2007 7:27:56 AM)

General reply to the madness:

I tend to reduce these types of issues into no-brainers, simply by tearing them out of their bdsm context.

Anytime you have any type of relationship between any two people where there are demands and  expectations placed upon someone with total disregard, or where there is resentment and anger for doing something for a loved one, or where there is competition between two people over who 'deserves' what or who has to "earn" something or who is "entitled" to something simply because they breathe,  you're going to be fucked. 

If both parties focus on serving the relationship dynamic,  instead of focusing on personal entitlements, there'd be alot more fulfillment going on for those involved, and alot less dysfunction.



justheather -> RE: Desire (3/7/2007 7:59:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo
If both parties focus on serving the relationship dynamic,  instead of focusing on personal entitlements, there'd be alot more fulfillment going on for those involved, and alot less dysfunction.


This is just so true.
If people would approach their primary relationships as a thing unto itself, something to which they commit, the betterment of which they consider before they consider their own wants and desires, they would most likely find that they are in a relationship that is healthy and fulfilling as a result. When both (or all) parties in the relationship do this, it's almost magical how it works.



losttreasure -> RE: Desire (3/7/2007 11:07:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: justheather


quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo
If both parties focus on serving the relationship dynamic,  instead of focusing on personal entitlements, there'd be alot more fulfillment going on for those involved, and alot less dysfunction.


This is just so true.
If people would approach their primary relationships as a thing unto itself, something to which they commit, the betterment of which they consider before they consider their own wants and desires, they would most likely find that they are in a relationship that is healthy and fulfilling as a result. When both (or all) parties in the relationship do this, it's almost magical how it works.


marieToo and justheather, I couldn't agree more.  When you find someone compatible with whom you wish to build a relationship, and you mutually commit to serving the best interests of that relationship, you become a team working for the same goal.  Success of the relationship means everybody wins.



Padriag -> RE: Desire (3/7/2007 11:24:39 AM)

Composing a reply to your latest post took me longer than I really had time for today, but made the time because I thought it important enough.  I dislike these sorts of misunderstandings.  Rather than addressing every point individually, which seems to be getting no where, I'm going to touch on just a few things I consider important and then attempt to cut to the heart of the matter.

First, understand that the way you framed your original posts (perhaps the product of that contrary mood), provoked more than just a discussion.  It gave the appearance of implying that dominants should be servile to the desires and whims of the submissive, that they are obligated to do so.  Not surprisingly it got an overwhelming "I don't think so!" reaction from many dominants.  You might want to take that into account in understanding the nature of the replies you got.

Second, nothing I said was in "retaliation" against you.  I have disagreed with what you said.  I did find two things in particular troubling.  That you felt it alright to imply that those who advocate behavior modification "have nothing else in their bag of tricks" was a derrogatory remark whether you intended it to be or not.  The second was that you laid blame for "many" failed relationships at the feet of dominants.  What troubled me here was that you seemed to be engaging in the sort of "lets bash the doms" postings while very unevenly ignoring that given no other information, it is just as likely a submissive was to blame for a failed relationship as a dominant (and in my experience its usually both), yet you only pointed a finger at dominants which again was very a very uneven treatment of things.

Now on to the heart of things.

In this last post you seemed to have either changed your position or clarified it some.  Here, you seem to be saying that a dominant's only obligation is to take a submissives desires into consideration.  This was NOT what you originally stated or implied.

Initially you seemed to take remarks that "some doms" had made that we believed a submissive could not expect to have her desires fulfilled (which is NOT what we said).  I responded (as did others) by clarifying that, in fact, this was not the case.  I clarified that, in fact, the position was that dominants were not under an obligation to fulfill her desires for her.

Now here's where your responses get wonky for me.  On the one hand you seem to agree with me that its not the dominants obligation to fulfill the desires of a submissive, that that is something you are capable of doing yourself and should do yourself and that presumably other submissives should as well.  But then later in the very same post you then try to cajole from me an agreement that a dominant does in fact have some obligation to fulfill the desires of a submissive.  You're exact words were, "If she does have those expectations and you agree to enter into a relationship with her, then doesn't that mean you assume some obligation to try to meet them?"  And from there, this has gone round and round in circles.

Now, however, you're saying something quite different from the above.  You appear to be saying that what you believe is that a dominant should take a submissives desires into consideration and at least allow the possibility for her to fulfill some of them herself?

If that is indeed what you mean, then I'm truly at a loss for where your original post came from and how you got that concern from what was actually said by "some doms" in other threads.  What "some doms" merely said is that dominants are not obligated to fulfill the desires of a submissive.  No where did the "some doms" you refer to, state that dominants should not allow a submissive to fulfill some (or even all) of her desires, or that they would not take them into account, or that they treated submissives as some sort of martyrs, or that they deny submissives or treat them without regard.

The fact is, if you read over the posts made by more than a few of those "some doms" from over the last year what you instead get is exactly the opposite.  Speaking for myself, and I feel I can safely include KnightofMists in this as well, we have been very vocal advocates of the responsibilities of dominants, ethical behavior in dominants, the importance of encouraging personal growth and development in submissives, etc.  And I doubt that we two are alone in that though sadly I cannot provide a list of specific names at the moment (chiefly because I don't spend enough time on these forums anymore to be aware of who else might have said so lately, so I leave it to those of you who have to speak up for yourselves).

That somehow you took that one statement by "some doms", and ignored the larger context of all else they have had to say I find perplexing.  But those "some doms" aren't a mystery as to who they are.  It takes only a brief search of recent posts to produce of a list of some half dozen names of which mine is probably at the top.  That you also implied that we "some doms" are advocating maltreating submissives could not be further from the truth.  And that some of us responded very vocally to this should not be surprising either.



FukinTroll -> RE: Desire (3/7/2007 11:58:37 AM)

Lost, knowing I started the fire I will give you a very thoughtful post when I have time to compose it.



Padriag -> RE: Desire (3/7/2007 12:24:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FukinTroll

Lost, knowing I started the fire I will give you a very thoughtful post when I have time to compose it.

I'm not sure you were the one that started the fire, or me, or KoM or one of a couple others.  But what I find myself wondering right now is if her only concern really was that when some of us big ole meany doms said we weren't obligated to fulfill the desires of a submissive, if that also meant we didn't have any regard for the submissive.  And instead of just saying, "Hey Pad (or whomever), you're not saying its okay for doms to treat submissives with a little care and regard are you?" and I'd have said,"Heck no, I'm just saying we don't have to cater to their desires, that when we do nice stuff its cause they earned it just cause we wanted to." and we could have avoided three pages of nonsense.  All because one submissive was feeling "contrary."  For the love of Pete.... [8|]



FirmhandKY -> RE: Desire (3/7/2007 4:56:31 PM)

Interesting thread.

I had a rather long discussion with treasure before she posted, and predicted it would pretty much end up were it has.

A few points, if I may?

I think the main issue that got her thinking along these lines was a couple of posts, over time (and one specific post recently), from "a few doms" that, in effect, said that the desires of a sub are always irrelevant. Or at least gave the impression that they meant so.

" Irrelevant" is a slippery word:

(adj) irrelevant (having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue)

The "subject at issue" in this case being a person's submission.

You can theorize that there are submissives who want the total loss and submersion of personality to the extent that they become autonomous robot.  But I suspect the number of submissives who truly wish this, or are able to accomplish it are vanishingly small.

Even a real "autonomous robot"  works within an unstructured environment with minimal human guidance.  And if there is a human being who comes close to achieving such a robotic-like status I suspect they would still has desires above and beyond their "needs".  They may be submerged.  They may be repressed.  They may be controlled.  But they exist.  It's a natural human attribute, and sans replacing the human brain with hardware, that's not going to change.

And it they exist, then they are always relevant.  Failure of a dom to recognize this fact is a failure of that dom to fully understand basic human nature.  That doesn't mean that there aren't doms who expound this belief that a "sub's desires are irrelevant", and have a successfull D/s relationship - perhaps even a long one - but I'd say they have a relationship despite, not because of that belief.

As well, the sheer fact that a submissive seeks out a D/s relationship is an example of that submissive's desire for such a relationship.

I know that such a desire is strong in many submissives, to the point that they talk about it being a need, but if you are classifying "needs" as the basics of food, water, shelter ... then it isn't a need.

If it is something they "require" in order to have a fufilling relationship ... to achieve "happiness" - then either you must redefine "needs", or accept that it's actually a "want" or "desire".

Either way ... it's relevant.

Another aspect of "a sub's needs and desires" that we discussed in relation to the belief that a sub's desires are "irrelevant", is a specific post that contained this bit of wisdom then proceeded to talk about using a sub's desires in order to control her (forgive me if I slip into non-gender neutral language) by positive and negative feedback by granting or withholding the enjoyment of her "desires".

Which, as I pointed out, if they were "irrelevant" wouldn't make any sense.

Truly, I don't make a big deal about this normally, because what I really think is that most doms who state their beliefs like this are doing is actually just trying to get a sub's mind in the right place - to get her to minimize the importance and make a clear distinction between "want" and "need".  Because, as has been mentioned, that is a distinction that many people in our society have a problem in making.

And a dom - even if he has publicly expounded upon the belief that a sub's "desires" are irrelevant, will still unconsciously operate with a more accurate understanding of human nature than a deep parsing of their words would imply.

So ... take it for what it's worth, and what you want.  I've got more, but will think about posting it later.

FirmKY



FukinTroll -> RE: Desire (3/7/2007 5:12:27 PM)

Her needs are paramount but her wants are irrelevant to the dynamic. Many of her wants will be met through the D/s practice. My needs are first and my M/s is tailored around those needs. Her needs will be met and her wants may or may not be met through my needs. Her wants are tools for me to play with. I will use those wants as rewards of just because I want to. In turn I can also restrict those wants as punishment or just because I want to. If she wants to be controlled or needs to be controlled I will control of her. If she doesn’t want to be controlled in all totality she can hang sub on her profile and move along.
I do not want anyone who needs a M/s relationship. I need someone who wants it. I am relying on her strength to lead her through a life she can manage and be happy with without a M/s dynamic. As Michael put it (as close as I recall), “Someone who has a rich full life that my life is complementary to.” I am not looking for a sycophant, she must compliment my Dominance with her submission.



mynded -> RE: Desire (3/7/2007 5:40:32 PM)

I desire to please my Dominant because i know His pleasure is mine. [:D]



ncmaster75 -> RE: Desire (3/19/2007 4:31:45 PM)

I think that a slave should get to know her Master before commiting herself to Him.  That way she will know in advance what she's getting into and will have a basic idea whether her desires are gonna be met.  I think there are alot of different opinions on this subject because alot of slaves don't want their opinions or desires to be considered at all.  I mean they range from wanting to be a piece of meat, to those who want to be spoiled and pampered by their Master.  So I think it's best for the slave to decide in advance what type of slave they want to be.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875