Desire (Full Version)

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



Message

losttreasure -> Desire (3/5/2007 7:32:34 PM)

I'm in a somewhat contrary mood this evening so I thought I'd scratch a bit of a philosophical itch I've had concerning occasional remarks I see from some doms.

Recent comments that have sparked my curiosity are ones to the effect of "a sub's wants and desires are irrelevant" and "I'm only concerned with meeting a sub's needs, not her desires".

There's a great deal of thought and reasoning behind those kinds of statements... I certainly don't want to imply that there isn't appropriate times and circumstances for their application, but essentially what comes to mind when I hear them is a question...

Where did this strange idea come from that “I don’t want to be in control” means “I don’t want my desires fulfilled”?




ownedgirlie -> RE: Desire (3/5/2007 7:34:42 PM)

For me it has nothing to do with not wanting my desires filled and everything to do with not expecting him to fulfill them as I dictate.



nissa -> RE: Desire (3/5/2007 7:44:30 PM)

I am going to take a shot at this and try to answer in a way that I have always thought about it ( notice I said I and not HIM lol )
 
I grew up in a family that did not have alot of money so our needs ALWAYS exceeded and won over our WANTS. As I got older and moved away, I kept with me the same kind of 'system' that I had learned growing up. That my needs would always come before my wants and that I had to be prepared to sacrifice my wants for my needs.
 
When I entered into a relationship, it was easy for me to once again separate and prioritize what I needed versus what I wanted. You ask when did this become 'not wanting desires fulfilled?" I have never seen 'desires' as a need; they have always fell under the umbrella of a want for myself. For example; while I may desire ( want ) a house; I can instead be quite content in an apartment; which fulfills the need for shelter.
 
I have never, not once, given up something that I needed. I have however, and will continue to do so for a great many years; set aside my wants as being unnecessary.
 
Sometimes I treat myself to something that I want; but I never sacrifice what I need.



Padriag -> RE: Desire (3/5/2007 7:50:51 PM)

Just enough time for one post before I got to bed.

quote:

Where did this strange idea come from that “I don’t want to be in control” means “I don’t want my desires fulfilled”?

I don't recall anyone saying the submissive didn't want their desires fulfilled.  In fact, I imagine to one extent or another they all do.  However, just because they want something doesn't mean I'm under an obligation to give it to them.  I might, if it suits me to do so... or more likely I might give them the opportunity to earn things as rewards or rewards for desired behavior (for example, they do well at some new challenge I've presented them with and I reward that to encourage the continued behavior).

Ownedgirlie made an important point, part of not being in control means not being able to expect those desires fulfilled as the submissive dictates.  The when, the if, and the conditions are up to the dominant.

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.  Although I have known a few who would stick around even then (having very low expectations regarding their treatment, unhealthily low expectations in my opinion).  But in most cases, and as with most things, a balance has to be maintained.



KnightofMists -> RE: Desire (3/5/2007 7:51:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

Where did this strange idea come from that “I don’t want to be in control” means “I don’t want my desires fulfilled”?



Well it doesn't mean that...  but some equate one begots the next.

In my thoughts.. giving control equates to giving up the choice of what, when, where and how desires will be fulfilled.... it really becomes a might be or or maybe not be situation.. but it sure doesn't mean  they will not be or don't want to be situation

I would say a Wise Dominant would feed and fulfill the desires of the "Relationship" and not just one individual within the dynamic



KatyLied -> RE: Desire (3/5/2007 7:52:53 PM)

I enter a relationship with the hope that my wants and needs (and oh yes, desires!) are met, or at least there is a good faith effort in that direction.  Otherwise I won't be sticking around.  I would have the same expectation in a vanilla relationship.  I feel that a relationship is about the people in it, both (or more if poly) meeting each other's needs, it's not all about one person.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Desire (3/5/2007 9:22:07 PM)

Lots of subs equate sacrifice to a sense of deeper submission- some even go so far as to say that if you are enjoying it, then you aren't submitting.  They feel they need to feel a loss of something direct in order for it to be "pure submission."

They also want to be passive- and in order to be passive, the dom has to just to everything and order everything down to the last details, without any input from the sub.  Input = active.  Sometimes this goes so far that the sub feels bad even about answering a direct question. 

The reality is that relationships work when everyone is fulfilled, and we get into consensual relationships because we desire to be in them.  People either move beyond their illusions of what power/control/authority dynamic relationships are like, or end up very frustrated.



hisannabelle -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 1:11:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

Ownedgirlie made an important point, part of not being in control means not being able to expect those desires fulfilled as the submissive dictates.  The when, the if, and the conditions are up to the dominant.


i agree with this wholeheartedly. however, one of the biggest ways i've grown as a submissive is to be able to understand that the fulfillment of my desires is a large part of what pleases Him - that i don't always have to be giving things up in order to be a twue submissive ;) that said, i don't expect it (or at least, i do my best not to expect it). but i think it's important (read: important, not necessarily required) for there to be a balance...for the dominant to provide some sort of sense of stability for the submissive's desires, as well as needs. for some people, that comes through reward/punishment type scenarios, but that's just one example. that said, i'm sure there are probably healthy, happy submissives who have dominants who regularly ignore their desires, or don't find it enriching to incorporate any sort of fulfillment. i just can't fathom it myself. ;)



catize -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 4:25:29 AM)

quote:

 Where did this strange idea come from that “I don’t want to be in control” means “I don’t want my desires fulfilled”? 


It is a concept born of a poor imagination and reveals an inability to discern a relationship which merely survives vs. one that thrives.  
 
A dominant would do well to keep in mind that random reinforcement is the most effective means of shaping human behavior.



jauntyone -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 6:10:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

I'm in a somewhat contrary mood this evening so I thought I'd scratch a bit of a philosophical itch I've had concerning occasional remarks I see from some doms.

Recent comments that have sparked my curiosity are ones to the effect of "a sub's wants and desires are irrelevant" and "I'm only concerned with meeting a sub's needs, not her desires".

There's a great deal of thought and reasoning behind those kinds of statements... I certainly don't want to imply that there isn't appropriate times and circumstances for their application, but essentially what comes to mind when I hear them is a question...

Where did this strange idea come from that “I don’t want to be in control” means “I don’t want my desires fulfilled”?



I am under no obligation to see that her wants/desires are fulfilled. However, if I want for this relationship to grow and sustain, realistically, it is in my best interest to keep her happy and fulfilled in ALL ways; wants, desires, dreams, and needs.



mstrjx -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 6:59:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

Where did this strange idea come from that “I don’t want to be in control” means “I don’t want my desires fulfilled”?



Perhaps it is because I'm more inclined to see the other side of the coin, but my instant reaction is this:

When did the idea of someone being dominant give them tacit approval to act on any of their baser selfish acts or thoughts and have no regard for who/what gets in their way?

And you wonder why there is abuse.

Jeff



KatyLied -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 7:05:19 AM)

quote:

When did the idea of someone being dominant give them tacit approval to act on any of their baser selfish acts or thoughts and have no regard for who/what gets in their way?


Exactly.  There are many Doms who seem to be under the misguided idea that the relationship is all about them and what they want/need.  I've never understood why people think this.  And I don't know how they make a relationship work with that attitude.  It never would with me.



onestandingstill -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 7:30:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

Where did this strange idea come from that “I don’t want to be in control” means “I don’t want my desires fulfilled”?



It's the whole double standard of the immature Dom/Master.
We are supposed to put them into the center of our life force and universe and for that all they owe us is food clothing and to be left on a shelf till they have a need you can fill for them.
They don't care about you being whole or fulfilled they only care about pacifying you so they can use you more.
They are takers, not TPExchangers.
They have no clue how to make a good BDSM relationship that's a benefit to anyone but themselves.
What they miss is a Mature Dom or Master knows how rare a selfless well behaved sub/slave is in this world, and that indeed this relationship is SUPPOSED TO MEET BOTH PEOPLE'S NEEDS.
I'm not saying they should give in to wants, but to take care of the sub/slaves emotional or physical needs so they don't feel neglected, taken advantage of and used is their responsibility.

Even a Ferrari will break down and leave you by the side of the road if you don't take care of maintenance required to keep it running on all cylinders. For that matter so would a robot.

Some so called Doms are actually selfish immature little boys who need to pretend to be good rulers to bully people into giving them what they want without them having to give anything back.
To those users a sub's emotional wellbeing is something they don't care about maintaining as again they want a stepford wife on the toy shelf to amuse themselves with from time to time, not a living thinking human doll.
Just be glad these selfish immature punks do post here, at least if they out themselves and their punk buddies chime in you know who's mail to delete without reading and who has no chance to come be in your grown up world.
It keeps you from putting your pearls before swine, and for that I'm grateful they post their arrogant BS.
suzanne



SimplyMichael -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 7:41:47 AM)

Oh god sometimes I love this place!  What a wonderfully long string of amazing posts!

Part of what I see driving the OP's observation is that when we are new we don't really know what we are seeing.  A dom who barks orders and micromanages someone seems "more" intense than someone who's submissive seems to be unmanaged.  Perhaps the first dom is on his third sub that year and the latter dom has trained his girl so well she simply knows what to do and they have been together for years.

Same goes for seeing a dom who is very much all about getting his needs met and gives his sub very little. Without knowing what to look for we mistake the more common asshole dom and a sub with low self esteem for the MUCH more rare dom who has got to a place where he knows exactly what he will and will not give to a sub and has found a sub who knows after much trial and error that that is the only sort of relationship that works for her.  Sadly, many can't tell the two apart and when you are in one, you are often too close to tell.



amayos -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 7:43:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure
Where did this strange idea come from that “I don’t want to be in control” means “I don’t want my desires fulfilled”?


One could just as easily ask, "how has 'submission' been twisted into nothing more than a method of getting one's own way?"

Fulfillment of the desire of submission is easy enough; it comes through submission itself. Being allowed to serve and obey one you adore should provide a very warm glow inside you. If one sees submission merely as a means to acquire any number of ends, he or she is bending for what is essentially nothing more than a series of 'gifts' that serve the giver.



losttreasure -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 7:45:43 AM)

And the contrary mood continues.  [;)]

Disclaimer of sorts:  Please don't take my remarks as criticism... they aren't intended to proclaim fault but to provoke thought... for myself as much as anyone else.  In challenging ideas and assumptions, we are opened to new possibilities...

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

For me it has nothing to do with not wanting my desires filled and everything to do with not expecting him to fulfill them as I dictate.


I suppose my first thought is why would you expect him to fulfill them at all?

Of course, here we enter into that vague and hard to define concept of desire...

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".

There is a huge difference, of course, between desiring the satisfaction that comes from achieving personal potential and desiring a bowl of ice cream every night.  [;)]

In a way, I guess I see desires as being those things we self-identify as being sources for happiness.  We want the things we want because we believe they will feed the ongoing need we have to be happy and content.  

That's not to say that we can't be wrong and that other things cannot make us happy, or that we cannot be content if we don't receive those things... but I've developed the opinion that understanding the difference is part of maturing.

For me, I do have expectations that my desires will be fulfilled... but I also expect that it will happen through my own actions, behavior and attitude.  I want FirmhandKY to lead me and our relationship... to be the foundation upon which our world is built... to set the tone and shape our goals... but I'm not going to hold him responsible for making me happy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

I don't recall anyone saying the submissive didn't want their desires fulfilled.  In fact, I imagine to one extent or another they all do.  However, just because they want something doesn't mean I'm under an obligation to give it to them.  I might, if it suits me to do so... or more likely I might give them the opportunity to earn things as rewards or rewards for desired behavior (for example, they do well at some new challenge I've presented them with and I reward that to encourage the continued behavior).


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. 

Of course that is a limited impression, but it feeds the misconception some have that being dominant is all about denying a submissive... and being a submissive is all about martyrdom.

There seems to be a pervasive assumption in this lifestyle that just because a submissive indicates a desire to be led, that it comes part and parcel with the deal that she's automatically signing up for the "treat me with no consideration" bandwagon.  Sure, there are some submissives for whom that is the ideal... but for those of us who don't buy into that, well... we're not "true" submissives. 

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.


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

In my opinion, the key really is compatibility.  Finding a dominant or submissive who shares similar wants, desires and needs... then working together for the fulfillment of both.  The dominant in the lead, of course. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

Although I have known a few who would stick around even then (having very low expectations regarding their treatment, unhealthily low expectations in my opinion).  But in most cases, and as with most things, a balance has to be maintained.


To play a bit of devil's advocate here... 

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? 

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists

I would say a Wise Dominant would feed and fulfill the desires of the "Relationship" and not just one individual within the dynamic


I would say so, too.  [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

The reality is that relationships work when everyone is fulfilled, and we get into consensual relationships because we desire to be in them.  People either move beyond their illusions of what power/control/authority dynamic relationships are like, or end up very frustrated.


Oh no... you mean if a dominant works to continue our relationship then he is ultimately giving me what I desire?  Ssshhhh... don't let him know that.  [;)]






ownedgirlie -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 8:12:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure


quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

For me it has nothing to do with not wanting my desires filled and everything to do with not expecting him to fulfill them as I dictate.


I suppose my first thought is why would you expect him to fulfill them at all?

I don't.  But I thought that was what you were asking in your OP.  My desires are fulfilled by serving him well.  So I suppose you could say I fulfill my own desires, indirectly.  I work to please him and as a result I am fulfilled.  I was simply saying that I don't place expectations on my Master to make me happy.

quote:


Of course, here we enter into that vague and hard to define concept of desire...

I define it as wanting something, or longing for something.  Sometimes it's best when my desire isn't fulfilled.  An example of physical desire "unmet" - When I am toyed with for his enjoyment, and left teetering on the edge of an orgasm without permission for relief...I am sometimes mentally and emotionally brought to the most amazing places.  It is his desire to keep me there awhile.  This supersedes my desire to explode.  And yet because he is so content with the situation, I would rather hang there and suffer for him in this way, because I love the end result.  So it is not that I do not desire, but it is true that while an immediate desire may not be fulfilled at all, my desire for joy and bliss in this relationship is more than met.

quote:


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".

I have placed all that makes me who I am at his feet.  But he doesn't wave his wand and "make it happen" for me.  He leads me to a place where it either happens automatically, or where he teaches me to do for myself.  To expect otherwise would somehow put me in princess status, which is something neither of us wants.

quote:


There is a huge difference, of course, between desiring the satisfaction that comes from achieving personal potential and desiring a bowl of ice cream every night.  [;)]

Aww heck, I'll take the ice cream every night!!  [:D]

quote:


In a way, I guess I see desires as being those things we self-identify as being sources for happiness.  We want the things we want because we believe they will feed the ongoing need we have to be happy and content.  

Perhaps, although that is not the case with me.  Often I go without what I wanted, and I am better off in the long run for it, and far happier.

quote:


That's not to say that we can't be wrong and that other things cannot make us happy, or that we cannot be content if we don't receive those things... but I've developed the opinion that understanding the difference is part of maturing.

I agree.

quote:


For me, I do have expectations that my desires will be fulfilled... but I also expect that it will happen through my own actions, behavior and attitude.  I want FirmhandKY to lead me and our relationship... to be the foundation upon which our world is built... to set the tone and shape our goals... but I'm not going to hold him responsible for making me happy.

I'm having trouble seeing where our opinions differ here.  Perhaps I misunderstood the entire of your OP, as I understood, "I want my desires fulfilled" to mean one wanted his/her Dominant to fulfill them.  That seems to be what I often read in these forums, so I perhaps incorrectly assumed you meant the same. But I'll hold to my opinion of wanting my Master's desires fulfilled over mine, and mine are fulfilled overall as a result.  Just like in my orgasm example, there are times in life when haivng my desires met would not enhance the relationship as much as going without.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 10:05:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: amayos
Fulfillment of the desire of submission is easy enough; it comes through submission itself. Being allowed to serve and obey one you adore should provide a very warm glow inside you. If one sees submission merely as a means to acquire any number of ends, he or she is bending for what is essentially nothing more than a series of 'gifts' that serve the giver.

I don't think slaves are generally that simple though.

For example, I love my family.  I spoil my nephews.  I would even say I NEED to spend time with them in my life in order to be "me" and fulfilled in me.

That has absolutely nothing to do with slavery.  It exists completely separate from my slave orientation.  It doesn't matter what owner I may have, that will be a part of my life.  No matter how awesome a master/slave relationship I have, if that part of my life is not brought WITHIN my life, I will be unfulfilled.

To me, that is where the OP was going- why is the suggestion that I have any other desires/wants/needs other than "submit" blinking in my head at all times considered bad?

I know a lot of slaves stretch to cover this- they say "Well if my master allows it and wants it, then I'm still submitting to what he wants."

That is indeed true- but the DESIRE itself still exists independently of the master, it would exist no matter who else was in the relationship and it is part of who the person is and is fulfilled by as a whole.

And, IMO, does not at all "take away" from their slavery.




Padriag -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 10:29:53 AM)

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.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

I don't recall anyone saying the submissive didn't want their desires fulfilled.  In fact, I imagine to one extent or another they all do.  However, just because they want something doesn't mean I'm under an obligation to give it to them.  I might, if it suits me to do so... or more likely I might give them the opportunity to earn things as rewards or rewards for desired behavior (for example, they do well at some new challenge I've presented them with and I reward that to encourage the continued behavior).

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.


quote:

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.


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.


quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

Although I have known a few who would stick around even then (having very low expectations regarding their treatment, unhealthily low expectations in my opinion).  But in most cases, and as with most things, a balance has to be maintained.


To play a bit of devil's advocate here... 

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:

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.  There are many personal desires I have in life (and many of them very ambitious), if I am to have any of them I must earn them on my own.  If a submissive expects me to grant some desire, then she is also placing herself in my debt.  I expect her to pay that debt by earning it through some service to me.  If she wants, for example, a new dress and expects me to buy it for her, then she will have to earn it as a reward and I will set tasks for her appropriate to that.  If she wants to study a new language she can go to school or else she can ask that I provide her with materials to do so (which I will again expect her to earn).

That I may sometimes grant her desires simply because it pleases me to do so is also only at my discretion, it is in no way an obligation.  That I may choose to give her gifts because I wish to, perhaps out of love or affection or admiration or whatever else may motivate me is a gift precisely because it was not an obligation.  Such obligations as you suggest sour and make bitter of everything that else would have been sweet.

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.

So let me be blunt to any submissive reading this.  In my house you earn your keep.  If you want your desires granted... you either work for them on your own or you earn them from me... but either way you will apply yourself.



Wildfleurs -> RE: Desire (3/6/2007 12:22:58 PM)

Using fast reply...

A few random thoughts.  First the bundling of needs with wants and desires is really confusing me.  To me needs are things that I need in order to be a fully functioning mentally and physically healthy person.  LA's example of family was a good one, for me my family is extroidenarily important to my mental health - they ground me and are constantly a source of support and so finding an owner that meshes well with my family (which he does) was very important to me.  However, sometimes my family calls me at the wrong times for the most inane things.... thats not a need to answer that particular inane phone call, but rather a want.  Given that the title of the thread is "Desire" I think it may be better to keep the discussion on things that are desires and wants, not really on issues of needs.

Secondly, I've found that the more I do what my owner wants and needs the more I get precisely what I need and want.  Its hard to explain, but its something I realized a few years ago that instead of focusing on me and what I wanted, and focusing on my owner it all worked out and I felt fufilled.

C~



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.198242E-02