Offering Service vs Obeying Commands

[JMohegan]

One thing I've noticed about people who describe themselves as pleasers (i.e., the "offering" type), is that they frequently explain this trait by giving examples of how they also enjoy pleasing/helping/being useful to their children, friends, family, etc.

In contrast, submissives will almost universally state that they obey only one person - their Dom/me.

I consider the urge to please to be an extremely attractive personality type. But an exchange of power is something else altogether. Obedience is D/s.

I am reiterating this point because to me it seems relevant to the following question.

As I said before I can see how this can happen in a natural way, but in the effort of communication especially when getting to know one another at the beginning, could understanding this aspect be helpful if it is raised and dicussed?

I frankly don't think a lot of discussion is necessary to pick out the pleasers in a crowd. Just watching their behavior, you can tell who is driven to offer help and try to please family, friends, & even acquaintances.

The key question to be addressed (in a D/s context) is how two people contemplating a relationship react to the idea of behavior control/ power exchange outside the bedroom. Big picture vs. micro-management. That is the question.

Often in discussions about comfort zones you only hear of limits being pushed, but I can see how this is one way to change up a few things knowing it goes against the grain a bit if you catch my meaning and be an effective way to spice things up a bit.

Yes, of course this could spice things up. However, as a big picture kind of a guy, I am only going to want to do this for limited periods of time.

The problem with a lot of explicit rules and micro-expectations is that I would have to remember them, too! I have to remember what they are, pay close attention to the details, and be willing to interrupt whatever the heck I am doing to enforce consequences if I am not being obeyed.

This has its value if I'm in the mood for spice, but over the long haul I am just not interested.

 

[RJMasters]

To be completely clear and honest, I have to say that I am 'offering' oriented in my Service. Whether it be sexually, physically (like giving affection or something as simple as a massage after his hard day's work) or things like daily chores to maintain the household.

I really get very excited and full of anticipation and happiness when he asks me to do something -specific- for him, but I find that I learn what partner likes very early in the relationship and do these things without needing to be asked, so maybe it's my own downfall that I'm pretty good at anticipating their needs.

Some things that I find usually unpleasant take on a new 'spin' when he -asks- me specifically for it. Like keeping the house clean...by myself it'd probably be a little cluttered, but for him I enjoy keeping it spotless. And sexually, things like anal sex, which I am still new to, and his....*ahem* size keeps it rather uncomfortable no matter how much practice and preperation I've gotten...when he wants it and -says- he wants it, I find myself looking forward to things that used to be hard for me.

Typically, though, I do things before needing to be asked.

satindesire,

Thank you for joining the conversaton and sharing you experiences and thoughts.

You raise an interesting point in that "maybe it's my own downfall that I'm pretty good at anticipating their needs". If I understand you correctly, you say this because by anticipating his needs so well, this may lessen the amount or frequency of direct commands he places on you, or gives to you.

What I find interesting about this is this...A dominant takes a submissve for many reasons but ultimately it is in order to make their life more enjoyable in any number of differnt ways.

Which begs the question(to everyone not just satindesire)...if the goal is for a submissive to make their dominant's life more enjoyable and they are or become exceedingly good at anticipating their dominant's wants and needs, does this somehow derail the whole process of D/s...is this the proverbial shooting of oneself in the foot?

When satindesire states that maybe it is her own "downfall" it raises some interesting dynamics. I think it is at this point where many begin to become exclusionary and even judgemental in their thinking. I know I have been guilty of doing so. We begin to make elaborate arguments and strict definitions that align with our view of things whether they align with reality or not. And through this we begin to make claims that this is that...and that is not this...

Well I am not going to go down that path this time as I have been down it too many times to know the end result is unprofitable. Instead, this time I am going to let common sense and reality define for me what is true rather than try to hold to some theory. I am going to hold onto the simple premise...

"the ultimate measure of success of what is or what is not D/s is defined by how happy and satisfied the two people in the relationship are, regardless of whether that happiness is achieve more by offering service, obedience service or a mixture of both."

It is IMO wrong for anyone to say that offering type service doesn' fall under the definition of submission. I think a more correct view would be to say that it is a part of overall submission with its many faceted expressions, and for some is a larger part then others which is perfectly ok.

PS: satindesire, please do not think that all I wrote here was written specifically in response to you....I was using something you shared as a means to express other thoughts and opinions about the over all topic. Again thank you for what you shared I enjoyed it.

 

[RJMasters]

I voted for an even balance of both, although I don't think that's quite what it is for me. I like obeying commands, for one thing. I have found, though, like many others who've already posted here, I certainly don't like being micro-managed. On the other hand, if a Dom wants me to do something, he'd better say so (preferably in a courteous manner, like BeachGurl--I think--mentioned). Like I once told a play partner, "I'm a slut, dammit, not a mind reader!"

My service to Master has been a learning process. At the beginning stages of our relationship, before I was collared, I mostly obeyed commands because I didn't know then what exactly he expected of me. I have slowly become more of an "offering service" type, now that I'm more aware of what he wants me to do. For example, when we first met, I wouldn't have dared just snatched his shoes off and started massaging his feet because I didn't know if he wanted me to or not. (Some people are kind of weird about their feet, y'know.) After he asked me to give him a foot-rub a couple of times, I learned that he enjoys it. So, now, I don't have any qualms about snatching his shoes off and massaging his feet when the notion strikes! I expect that the longer we are together, the better I'll get. Familiarity, for me, breeds the offering of service. That's not to say that I don't still enjoy the feeling of contentment I get when I do what he asks successfully.

Thank you BiBunny. Good example of how the learning curve happens and how we change and relationships evolve over time.

 

[RJMasters]

My human nature, in and out of submissive roleplay is that of "offering". I am a giver and a peacekeeper. My heart functions to serve others, to give and offer of myself. Even my chosen profession, nursing, is a 'giving' experience.

Do not misunderstand me, I am NO doormat type personality. I am extremely strong willed and cower to no one, save my Master. My temper is legendary to those who know me. But I feel good inside when I offer my services and submission; I feel secure.

I obey my Master when he asks specific tasks of me, yet I personally feel as if I failed him in some way by not identifying his needs beforehand and acting upon them. No, I can't read his mind ... but we are very much in tune with one another and know each other's personalities very intimately. I usually can sense his needs or desires and offer my submission before he has to ask.

Thank you for joining the conversation Sprinkles. I understood most of your post, but what threw me is when you said...

"in and out of submissive roleplay"

Perhaps it is the words being used here that is throwing me. Could you elaborate on what you mean by roleplay? And when you mean "in and out" do you mean that you are submissive only sometimes? If so who chooses those times? Yourself or your Master? Before I can comment further on what you shared, I need a better understanding of what you meant by those phrases. Thank you.

 

[incubus'_sub]

Hmmm, seems to me that purely offering type service is a form of caring & loving your partner & has little to do with D/s in itself. Millions of vanilla partners behave like this & still frustate the hell out of their kinkier other halves.

The key is the shared kink & that involves a lot more than making someone's life easier & anticipating their ordinary living needs. Wilbur's wife was a perfect example of the 1950s type perfect wife, but he still seemed to prefer his relationship with Mr Ed.

 

[RJMasters]

One thing I've noticed about people who describe themselves as pleasers (i.e., the "offering" type), is that they frequently explain this trait by giving examples of how they also enjoy pleasing/helping/being useful to their children, friends, family, etc.

In contrast, submissives will almost universally state that they obey only one person - their Dom/me.

I consider the urge to please to be an extremely attractive personality type. But an exchange of power is something else altogether. Obedience is D/s.

I am reiterating this point because to me it seems relevant to the following question.

I frankly don't think a lot of discussion is necessary to pick out the pleasers in a crowd. Just watching their behavior, you can tell who is driven to offer help and try to please family, friends, & even acquaintances.

The key question to be addressed (in a D/s context) is how two people contemplating a relationship react to the idea of behavior control/ power exchange outside the bedroom. Big picture vs. micro-management. That is the question.

I disagree.

Well let me rephrase that...I agree with what you said, but I disagree that it is a one size fits all definition and therefore incomplete and the absolutness of the way it is phrased is disporportionallly inaccurate.

Largely my response to this can be found in my response to satindesire's post.

I will add the following in response to the above....You say:

"The key question to be addressed (in a D/s context) is how two people contemplating a relationship react to the idea of behavior control/ power exchange outside the bedroom. "

My response is no, that is the Key question for "you" but it is not the only key criteria by which many base D/s relationships upon.

As for power exchange/control...submission offered in service to please a dominante can be seen as "power exchange". The reason is because exchange is not a one way street. It can flow in both directions. In the context of an existing D/s relationship, power exchange has two faces. One is...the "Take and relinquish" the other is the "give and accept". You are arguing that the the "give and accept" is not a valid form of power exchange and I would point out that, that depends on what you define power as.

Most assuredly if the sterotypical thinking of power and control is seen only as brute force and the conotations that implies, then your definition is accurate and I wish well those practice this form of D/s as I have no axe whatsoever to grind.

However, power exchange IMO takes into account many more things than just brute force. And because my thinking can and does allow for this, it is why I disagree because I do not think your definition goes far enough in accepting the various forms that submission and dominance can take.

 

[RJMasters]

Hmmm, seems to me that purely offering type service is a form of caring & loving your partner & has little to do with D/s in itself. Millions of vanilla partners behave like this & still frustate the hell out of their kinkier other halves.

The key is the shared kink & that involves a lot more than making someone's life easier & anticipating their ordinary living needs. Wilbur's wife was a perfect example of the 1950s type perfect wife, but he still seemed to prefer his relationship with Mr Ed.

Ah another one with a key.

Again I would say the "key" of kink maybe be "key" for you, but many do not see D/s as kink at all. Or I should say that many see a seperation between BDSM kink and D/s. Many beleive that D/s is the relationship in which kinks are shared, but the relationship itself is not defined in their minds as kinky in the same way as fetishes are considered.

 

[incubus'_sub]

Well, kink is just an all encompassing descriptive word really & while it does include fetishes, it's also much more than that.

I do know a lot of people who live this lifestyle though, & none of them would be satisfied by a purely cerebral, emotional type of D/s that didn't include the bedroom. I'd even go so far as to suggest that even those who purport to be satisfied with this D/s of the mind &/or O/L relationships would jump at the chance to have a flesh & blood sexual D/s relationship in an instant if it were possible.

 

[RJMasters]

Well, kink is just an all encompassing descriptive word really & while it does include fetishes, it's also much more than that.

I do know a lot of people who live this lifestyle though, & none of them would be satisfied by a purely cerebral, emotional type of D/s that didn't include the bedroom. I'd even go so far as to suggest that even those who purport to be satisfied with this D/s of the mind &/or O/L relationships would jump at the chance to have a flesh & blood sexual D/s relationship in an instant if it were possible.

Your powers of observation are over whelming.

I don't see anyone who has contributed to this thread so far who claims to be satisfied by a purely cerebral, emotional type of D/s that didn't include the bedroom.

However, you can continue projecting if you like if it makes you feel better.

 

[Ebonyfire]

I do know a lot of people who live this lifestyle though, & none of them would be satisfied by a purely cerebral, emotional type of D/s that didn't include the bedroom. I'd even go so far as to suggest that even those who purport to be satisfied with this D/s of the mind &/or O/L relationships would jump at the chance to have a flesh & blood sexual D/s relationship in an instant if it were possible.

Mine do not include the bedroom. It is always wrong to assume that what you want applies to everyone.

I have said this so many times I am sick of repeating it. Sex is just sex. I do not need D/s to have sex. My sexuality is not tied to this lifestyle. If you look that my past postings that go back to 2002, I have always said this.

Sex is a tool that I may or may not use. End of explanation. There is more detail, but ya know, at this stage of my life I just do not have the time or patience to explain.

I think that D/s starts with the mind, it is a powerful part of the power exchange. As for online, well whatever floats your boat, online real life, if it is real to ya, it is real for ya!

Eb

 

[JMohegan]

I will add the following in response to the above....You say:

"The key question to be addressed (in a D/s context) is how two people contemplating a relationship react to the idea of behavior control/ power exchange outside the bedroom. "

My response is no, that is the Key question for "you" but it is not the only key criteria by which many base D/s relationships upon.

The only key criteria for me? Not by a long shot. That is the key question to be addressed in discussing D/s compatibility (which is what I understood to be the point of your questions on this thread). But there is much, much more to the relationship as a whole.

Here's how it works in my world.

The first thing I notice about a woman is the way she looks. There are women I find physically attractive, and these will get further attention of a certain kind from me if I am seeking a partner.

The next thing I notice about a woman is the way she treats other people (not just me). Is she polite? Generally respectful? Gracious? Kind? Compassionate?

If so, I will try to get to know her further. Talking to her directly, I will discover if there is chemistry between us and learn about her intelligence, sense of humor, and other personality traits that are critically important to me..... including whether or not she is a "pleaser", as discussed in the posts above.

There's more to it, of course, but what I am trying to emphasize here is that, to me, D/s is a fairly traditional relationship first, and then D/s on top of all those normal boy/girl compatability things. And we aren't even going to get to the D/s compatibility discussion unless all those other hurdles have been cleared.

As for power exchange/control...submission offered in service to please a dominante can be seen as "power exchange". The reason is because exchange is not a one way street. It can flow in both directions. In the context of an existing D/s relationship, power exchange has two faces. One is...the "Take and relinquish" the other is the "give and accept". You are arguing that the the "give and accept" is not a valid form of power exchange and I would point out that, that depends on what you define power as.

Define power however you wish. I see merit in the definition you offer here.

But, by this definition, there are a whole hell of a lot of non-D/s couples engaging in power exchange, as you have defined it. I find that a fascinating theory with some merit, and I actually know people who do not believe in the existence of "vanilla" relationships. However, since you have used that word frequently, I assume that you do.

Most assuredly if the sterotypical thinking of power and control is seen only as brute force and the conotations that implies, then your definition is accurate and I wish well those practice this form of D/s as I have no axe whatsoever to grind.

However, power exchange IMO takes into account many more things than just brute force. And because my thinking can and does allow for this, it is why I disagree because I do not think your definition goes far enough in accepting the various forms that submission and dominance can take.

How the heck does "brute force" figure into this discussion? And why would you ascribe the concept of force to anything I have written on this thread (or anywhere else, for that matter)?

I don't believe that obedience equates to brute force. Do you?

I think it is at this point where many begin to become exclusionary and even judgemental in their thinking.

I am not trying to exclude anyone, and certainly not passing judgment here.

I do not see a hierarchy of fabulousness, with the most obedience-oriented relationships at the top, and everyone else lining up behind the same. And I am certainly not saying that anyone on this thread is less submissive than anyone else.

I have described myself as a big picture kind of guy whose partners have all been pleasers. The implication that I am being exclusionary and judgmental in this context means that I am excluding and passing judgment on myself and the women I have loved. That's ridiculous.

RJ, I have the sense that you feel I am insulting somewhere here.... but for the life of me, I can not figure out who it is. I have not said, nor would I ever say, that one form of D/s is superior to another.

I am going to hold onto the simple premise...

"the ultimate measure of success of what is or what is not D/s is defined by how happy and satisfied the two people in the relationship are, regardless of whether that happiness is achieve more by offering service, obedience service or a mixture of both."

No. That is the measure of success in the relationship. Not a definition of D/s itself.

 

[RJMasters]

The only key criteria for me? Not by a long shot. That is the key question to be addressed in discussing D/s compatibility (which is what I understood to be the point of your questions on this thread). But there is much, much more to the relationship as a whole.

Here's how it works in my world.

The first thing I notice about a woman is the way she looks. There are women I find physically attractive, and these will get further attention of a certain kind from me if I am seeking a partner.

The next thing I notice about a woman is the way she treats other people (not just me). Is she polite? Generally respectful? Gracious? Kind? Compassionate?

If so, I will try to get to know her further. Talking to her directly, I will discover if there is chemistry between us and learn about her intelligence, sense of humor, and other personality traits that are critically important to me..... including whether or not she is a "pleaser", as discussed in the posts above.

There's more to it, of course, but what I am trying to emphasize here is that, to me, D/s is a fairly traditional relationship first, and then D/s on top of all those normal boy/girl compatability things. And we aren't even going to get to the D/s compatibility discussion unless all those other hurdles have been cleared.

Define power however you wish. I see merit in the definition you offer here.

But, by this definition, there are a whole hell of a lot of non-D/s couples engaging in power exchange, as you have defined it. I find that a fascinating theory with some merit, and I actually know people who do not believe in the existence of "vanilla" relationships. However, since you have used that word frequently, I assume that you do.

How the heck does "brute force" figure into this discussion? And why would you ascribe the concept of force to anything I have written on this thread (or anywhere else, for that matter)?

I don't believe that obedience equates to brute force. Do you?

I am not trying to exclude anyone, and certainly not passing judgment here.

I do not see a hierarchy of fabulousness, with the most obedience-oriented relationships at the top, and everyone else lining up behind the same. And I am certainly not saying that anyone on this thread is less submissive than anyone else.

I have described myself as a big picture kind of guy whose partners have all been pleasers. The implication that I am being exclusionary and judgmental in this context means that I am excluding and passing judgment on myself and the women I have loved. That's ridiculous.

RJ, I have the sense that you feel I am insulting somewhere here.... but for the life of me, I can not figure out who it is. I have not said, nor would I ever say, that one form of D/s is superior to another.

No. That is the measure of success in the relationship. Not a definition of D/s itself.

Well heck...you have some good points, and some of your remarks require a bit of further explanation on my part as to what I meant. "brute force" is kind of representative of a whole thought process which is why I included the phrase nd its conotations" after it...I realise that unless you know where I a coming from it would leave much to be desired in understanding my reference to it. I will work on explaining better what I meant.

But you stated rather factually...that in the context of D/s compatability, "obedience" is the key. And as I said in my other post, yes I agree but I disagree that in the cotext of D/s compatibility "obedience" is the only key. You also earlier made statements to the fact that you distinguish "pleasing" as not being D/s and you used vanilla relationships as examples to show the same behavior exist in them and so could not be rightly defined as D/s.

I am pretty sure I didn't read you wrongly. You made a distinction, gave examples why you felt a difference existed.

As you reassert in your last post..."No. That is the measure of success in the relationship. Not a definition of D/s itself."

To which I say, will you give us the proper "definition" of D/s then so we can all match our behavior to the definition you provide? There are so many trying to fit into some kind of role that has been defined as "this is what D/s is." I am tired of that kind of thinking and would prefer to let people experiences speak for themselves. In which case it ceases to only be a measure of success, but also is a living example of what D/s can be whether it fits my way of thinking or not.

In my experience people are much more prone to say...that is not D/s....rather than say...hmmmmm I didn't know D/s could be like that...interesting.

 

[Sprinkles22]

Thank you for joining the conversation Sprinkles. I understood most of your post, but what threw me is when you said...

"in and out of submissive roleplay"

Perhaps it is the words being used here that is throwing me. Could you elaborate on what you mean by roleplay? And when you mean "in and out" do you mean that you are submissive only sometimes? If so who chooses those times? Yourself or your Master? Before I can comment further on what you shared, I need a better understanding of what you meant by those phrases. Thank you.

Oh sorry for the confusion. What I meant by 'in and out of submissive roleplay' is simply the difference between being with my Master and when I am in the real world as a career woman. I am always submissive with my Master, but rather alpha to the world around me. I'm 'service oriented' in personality, but still extremely strong willed and opinionated.

Being with my Master provides me security and lets me drop my guard; it lets me lay my responsibilities at the door and just be the sweet, insecure girl I am deep, deep inside of myself.

In NO way do I consider D/s or my submissiveness to be 'roleplay' or a game.

 

[JMohegan]

"brute force" is kind of representative of a whole thought process which is why I included the phrase nd its conotations" after it...I realise that unless you know where I a coming from it would leave much to be desired in understanding my reference to it. I will work on explaining better what I meant.

OK. I look forward to hearing your explanation.

As you reassert in your last post..."No. That is the measure of success in the relationship. Not a definition of D/s itself."

To which I say, will you give us the proper "definition" of D/s then so we can all match our behavior to the definition you provide?

[I am editing my post by adding the red text here. I originally refused to respond to the question about the proper definition of D/s, since I do not respond to obnoxious sarcasm. However, it has occurred to me that the question may be simply rhetorical rather than sarcastic. Since I do not know you, RJ, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and respond.

When I wrote - "I consider the urge to please to be an extremely attractive personality type. But an exchange of power is something else altogether. Obedience is D/s." - I was not trying to define D/s, or put boundaries on D/s relationships. The point I was trying to make was that obedience (i.e., the transfer of control from one person to another) is what distinguishes D/s relationships from non-D/s relationships.

Hopefully, this clarifies my statement.]


As I understood your questions, above, what you want to discuss on this thread is compatibility between two people in a D/s relationship. You discuss "offering service vs. obeying commands" as if these are two ends of a spectrum, and you are suggesting that people have conversations to determine compatibility based on where they fall on the same.

I do not see these two things as being on the same spectrum at all. And the point of my comments here has been to say that the "obeying commands" spectrum is separate and distinct from everything else. In a D/s context, this spectrum has the big picture on one end, and micromanagement on the other.

You also earlier made statements to the fact that you distinguish "pleasing" as not being D/s and you used vanilla relationships as examples to show the same behavior exist in them and so could not be rightly defined as D/s.

"Pleasing" has been a huge part of my D/s relationships. I have said so from my very first post on this thread.

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=19045319&postcount=25

Affection has also been a huge part of my D/s relationships, as well as humor, intellectual discourse, etc.

These things are vital parts of the relationship, but they do not distinguish my flavor of relationships from those of my non-D/s family and friends.

RJ, when you have a chance, would you please respond to my comments about the idea of power exchange in non-D/s relationships? For ease of reference, I will repost them here:

Define power however you wish. I see merit in the definition you offer here.

But, by this definition, there are a whole hell of a lot of non-D/s couples engaging in power exchange, as you have defined it. I find that a fascinating theory with some merit, and I actually know people who do not believe in the existence of "vanilla" relationships. However, since you have used that word frequently, I assume that you do.

 

[incubus'_sub]

Ebony, I don't recall saying that I need D/s to have sex either & my observations of the people I know are just as valid as yours.

If I was subbing for a living, then my efforts would entail giving a D/s experience to someone who is unable or unwilling to experience it any other way. From what I've seen, read & heard that doesn't involve having sex with clients , but is usually based on the sexual fantasy of the client, what ever that might be. I have good relationships with my customers in my businesses. I provide a service to their satisfaction & they pay me. Presumably you do the same, but do you count those clients as actual D/s relationships or are they really just work like any other work.

RJ, I don't really know what you really want to know in this thread now. Do you want our opinions which are given according to our own experiences or observations, or not really if they don't mesh with yours? Are you trying to prove to yourself that every relationship on earth has some sort of D/s element no matter how obscure? There is no disrespect implied by my saying that you are really just describing what would commonly be known as a normal, loving, vanilla type relationship, which is the way you've described your marriage in the past. Is it possible that by trying to think of ways that it might possibly have a D/s element you are still postponing doing the types of things, physically, that you've recently stated that you want to do?

 

[Netzach]

Well, kink is just an all encompassing descriptive word really & while it does include fetishes, it's also much more than that.

I do know a lot of people who live this lifestyle though, & none of them would be satisfied by a purely cerebral, emotional type of D/s that didn't include the bedroom. I'd even go so far as to suggest that even those who purport to be satisfied with this D/s of the mind &/or O/L relationships would jump at the chance to have a flesh & blood sexual D/s relationship in an instant if it were possible.

I agree with you. I don't see "the bedroom" as having sex with ther person necessarily, but it does have to do with the stuff under my skirt. If that's not in the mix, it's just as good that I go to a restaurant with linens or pay someone to clean my house.

 

[incubus'_sub]

Whew, thanks Netz. Yes, I meant sex as in overall attraction between people rather than just the squishy bit itself. Part of the compatibility question.

In my experience (hell, there I go again relying on my own eyes, ears & brain) if a desire for a D/s relationship in a sexual sense is not shared by both partners, sooner or later the non interested party is going to feel pressured or the interested party is going to feel frustrated or both. A compromise achieved by either the denial of the desire or the pretense of the desire will only work for a short time, with both feeling shortchanged. How many times do we read posts from people asking how to spark the interest in their vanilla partners? How many times are their efforts successful, really?

 

[RJMasters]

RJ, I don't really know what you really want to know in this thread now. Do you want our opinions which are given according to our own experiences or observations, or not really if they don't mesh with yours? Are you trying to prove to yourself that every relationship on earth has some sort of D/s element no matter how obscure? There is no disrespect implied by my saying that you are really just describing what would commonly be known as a normal, loving, vanilla type relationship, which is the way you've described your marriage in the past. Is it possible that by trying to think of ways that it might possibly have a D/s element you are still postponing doing the types of things, physically, that you've recently stated that you want to do?

Do you think it is a coincedence that in the last 8 posts that you have made to me directly, ALL have contained references about my marriage?

I would like to know if:
A) You have some fixation about my personal life
B) Trying to refine being a bitch down to an art form
C) All the above

The answer to your question is no.

As for peoples obeservatons or expereices not meshing with mine....as I look back over this thread, I see 90% of the posts made about people's experiences...did you catch that? Experiences, share how offering service is a part of the way they see themselves expressing their submission in their D/s relationships.

So I ask you with those facts staring you in the face...am I the one discounting other people's experiences? And the 2 people on this thread, you being one of them, that have offered differening opinions, I have wished you all the happiness in the world.

Just so I am clear...I don't think anyone has ever put up with another person making post after post about their personal life that include suble and overt comments of a negative nature without get annoyed and angry about it. If the trend continues I will be glad to introduce you to my ignore button as you rarely say anything helpful, important or encouraging anyways.

 

[RJMasters]

OK. I look forward to hearing your explanation.

I'll give it my best shot.

However, it has occurred to me that the question may be simply rhetorical rather than sarcastic. Since I do not know you, RJ, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and respond.

Yes I wasn't trying to be sarcastic...I was asking an honest question based upon the position you took. It was simply an attempt to make you see my POV.

When I wrote - "I consider the urge to please to be an extremely attractive personality type. But an exchange of power is something else altogether. Obedience is D/s." - I was not trying to define D/s, or put boundaries on D/s relationships. The point I was trying to make was that obedience (i.e., the transfer of control from one person to another) is what distinguishes D/s relationships from non-D/s relationships.

Hopefully, this clarifies my statement.][/COLOR]

It does but pretty much is what I understood your thoughts to be. I will have to agree to disagree with you based upon what I said earlier about how one defines "power" in what is considered power exchange.

As I understood your questions, above, what you want to discuss on this thread is compatibility between two people in a D/s relationship. You discuss "offering service vs. obeying commands" as if these are two ends of a spectrum, and you are suggesting that people have conversations to determine compatibility based on where they fall on the same.

Nope I do not see them as being two ends of a spectrum at all, I just see them as both being equal expressions of submission. I do see how each one can have an effect upon compatibility, though compatibility is only a side aspect I brought up.

I do not see these two things as being on the same spectrum at all. And the point of my comments here has been to say that the "obeying commands" spectrum is separate and distinct from everything else. In a D/s context, this spectrum has the big picture on one end, and micromanagement on the other.

"Pleasing" has been a huge part of my D/s relationships. I have said so from my very first post on this thread.

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=19045319&postcount=25

Affection has also been a huge part of my D/s relationships, as well as humor, intellectual discourse, etc.

These things are vital parts of the relationship, but they do not distinguish my flavor of relationships from those of my non-D/s family and friends.

Nods in many ways these do not distinguish, but I never sought to try to distinguish anything, you have. I asked a simple question at the beginning of this thread and sat back and let people share their experiences and then made comments on them.

RJ, when you have a chance, would you please respond to my comments about the idea of power exchange in non-D/s relationships? For ease of reference, I will repost them here:

There are many types of power exchanges that happen outside of D/s or BDSM. Even when two parties are making an attempt to respect equality, effort is being made to maintain a power balance. Examples of power exchanges could be a boss and their employee, a soldier and his higher ranking officer. I know we are talking more about intamate type relationships, but I wanted to bring those up to show expand the perspective where it concerns power exchanges.

Yes power exchanges do occurr in non-D/s relationships. I do not feel the presence of power exchanges in a non-D/s relationship makes them D/s.

Power has many different faces...as an example I often talk about how power is a position of authority. The person in authority has real power over those who are under their authority. You can look at a teenage child that is a young adult, yet the parent still has authority over them. you don't clean your room you are not going to the dance tonight. The parent has the authority or power to say yes or no, and the child is given a choice to obey or suffer the consequences. This is not D/s, yet it is an example of real power, real authority and real control. The child may even submit in obedience to the order given, but that does not make them a submissive. Same can be said to many wives who acknowledge their husbands as having the authority to lead the household. They will even submit to do things according to his will, but when asked if they are "his" submissive, they will say no of course not. They do what they do because they love him, want to make him happy, to keep the family going etc...but none of it is done with an attitude of submission to him.

In a D/s relationship, a submissive acknowledges their dominant's authority, and power etc... however they do one thing more and that is they acknowledge "ownership". That they are "his" submissive, or in the case of a Domme, he is "her" submissive. This then is what makes the power exchange different than other types of power exchanges, and it goes to the motive of why a submissive does what they do for their dominant. Hence offering service is an extension of their acknowledgement of ownership, even though they share similar motivations that non-D/s people would such as love, or having a desire to please. The acknowledgement of ownership is what makes the D/s power exchange "a" D/s power exchange. It cannot be faked or manipulated around, nor can the person be made to acknowledge ownership. Sure you can beat a person till they obey, but only they have the power to set the level they are willing to acknowledge your ownership(power) over them. As the relationship matures, the submissive surrenders more and more control to the dominant as their acknowledgemnet of their ownership over who they are deepens.

I hope that clarifys a bit some of my thoughts in what I meant. Again I apologise if I came across as sarcastic or negative.

 

[dexwebster]

I have slowly become more of an "offering service" type, now that I'm more aware of what he wants me to do. . . . I expect that the longer we are together, the better I'll get. Familiarity, for me, breeds the offering of service.

I like this. This is the kind of thing I try to do. The more I can do that he doesn't have to ask for, it is an indication--to me--of my dedication and how well I've learned his desires. From how he takes his tea and coffee, to walking on the far side of him when we're at a marina so he can see the boats better.

 

[JMohegan]

I will have to agree to disagree with you based upon what I said earlier about how one defines "power" in what is considered power exchange.

Fair enough.

Nope I do not see them as being two ends of a spectrum at all, I just see them as both being equal expressions of submission. I do see how each one can have an effect upon compatibility, though compatibility is only a side aspect I brought up.

Nods in many ways these do not distinguish, but I never sought to try to distinguish anything, you have. I asked a simple question at the beginning of this thread and sat back and let people share their experiences and then made comments on them.

Over the years, I have seen a lot of people walk into a discussion of D/s and wonder.... is that right for me? Many come to this board wondering this exact thing.

The reason I believe it is important to focus on obedience as the distinguishing factor between D/s and non-D/s relationships is to avoid the appearance that D/s is a beneficial or appropriate relationship for anyone who is a pleaser or anyone who has a need to be helpful to other human beings. I am not writing this for your benefit, RJ. (As far as I can tell, you have not disagreed with the point that obedience is an important part of D/s.) I am simply trying to avoid a misconception that I have seen others make in the past.

Experienced submissives will say things like the following:

other times I'm a lazyass and he makes a not-so-suggestion and I move

Obedience when I am in service is not optional.

They understand the concept of obedience and recognize it as an integral part of their D/s relationships.

But I have spoken to many "pleasers" in the exploring phase who don't really grasp what many dominants mean when they talk about power exchange or a transfer of control. They look at submissives talking about the urge to please their mate, and they see the joy expressed by people in the lifestyle, and they think that maybe this could be a way for them to find happiness and fulfillment in relationships too.

Maybe. But maybe not. Because you can buy spontaneous gifts and organize his DVDs and research his work problems and make special dinners and give him unsolicited backrubs and walk in a way that gives him a better view of the boats..... BUT..... if he tells you to do something in the D/s portion of your relationship (in the bedroom, out of the bedroom, or some combination of the two), then you are going to be expected to do it.

This is the area where I see a lot of people tripping up as they try to enter the D/s world, and this is why I have been focusing on the distinction between D/s and non-D/s in your thread about D/s compatibility.

 

[JMohegan]

In a D/s relationship, a submissive acknowledges their dominant's authority, and power etc... however they do one thing more and that is they acknowledge "ownership". That they are "his" submissive, or in the case of a Domme, he is "her" submissive. This then is what makes the power exchange different than other types of power exchanges, and it goes to the motive of why a submissive does what they do for their dominant. Hence offering service is an extension of their acknowledgement of ownership, even though they share similar motivations that non-D/s people would such as love, or having a desire to please. The acknowledgement of ownership is what makes the D/s power exchange "a" D/s power exchange. It cannot be faked or manipulated around, nor can the person be made to acknowledge ownership. Sure you can beat a person till they obey, but only they have the power to set the level they are willing to acknowledge your ownership(power) over them. As the relationship matures, the submissive surrenders more and more control to the dominant as their acknowledgemnet of their ownership over who they are deepens.

I hope that clarifys a bit some of my thoughts in what I meant. Again I apologise if I came across as sarcastic or negative.

Apology unnecessary, but appreciated. Thanks for the clarification.

This is a very interesting perspective, but not one that I share. That is, I do not see my particular flavor of D/s as "ownership". To me, it is a partnership in a symbiotic relationship. Because I give my heart to my partner, I am just as vulnerable to her as she is to me, and we are dependent on each other for happiness in the personal relationship.

Sure, a submissive of mine would say, "I am his submissive." But I would also say, "I am her dominant." We belong together (not one to the other), and each provides services and pleasure that fulfills the other's needs.

Ownership, to me, implies property that one might value very highly, but could also trade or discard without a sense of emotional loss. Because of the way I view D/s relationships, that concept doesn't work for me.

 

[SpectreT]

Apology unnecessary, but appreciated. Thanks for the clarification.

This is a very interesting perspective, but not one that I share. That is, I do not see my particular flavor of D/s as "ownership". To me, it is a partnership in a symbiotic relationship. Because I give my heart to my partner, I am just as vulnerable to her as she is to me, and we are dependent on each other for happiness in the personal relationship.

Sure, a submissive of mine would say, "I am his submissive." But I would also say, "I am her dominant." We belong together (not one to the other), and each provides services and pleasure that fulfills the other's needs.

Ownership, to me, implies property that one might value very highly, but could also trade or discard without a sense of emotional loss. Because of the way I view D/s relationships, that concept doesn't work for me.

I hate to jump on with a simple quote and a "me, too", but this is very well said.

 

[satindesire]

I am deeply grateful that my comments here have been veiwed as useful.

Onto the questions that have been asked...

About me feeling as though my ability to learn quickly and anticipate the needs of my partner is a downfall in the relationship...

Yes, I honestly feel this way. I love requests, demands, whatever you want to label them as. I feel excited, like "Here I am, needed, desired, wanted. He needs me to do something for/to him!" It's very fullfilling. The anticipation that builds is almost sexual, even when it's a relativly mundane task.

I would NEVER go lax on my service in order to nudge him into asking, because I believe that is completly passive-agressive and NOT a healthy attitude to have in a relationship, but I do -almost- wish that I wasn't so 'in tune' with him.

 

[shy slave]

I am deeply grateful that my comments here have been veiwed as useful.

Onto the questions that have been asked...

About me feeling as though my ability to learn quickly and anticipate the needs of my partner is a downfall in the relationship...

Yes, I honestly feel this way. I love requests, demands, whatever you want to label them as. I feel excited, like "Here I am, needed, desired, wanted. He needs me to do something for/to him!" It's very fullfilling. The anticipation that builds is almost sexual, even when it's a relativly mundane task.

I would NEVER go lax on my service in order to nudge him into asking, because I believe that is completly passive-agressive and NOT a healthy attitude to have in a relationship, but I do -almost- wish that I wasn't so 'in tune' with him.

I have found this thread very interesting, such a diverse collection of views has been great to read and think through.
Not sure i have coherent enough thoughts to share at present, but I agree with the bold highlighted part of satins post. I think this type of behaviour is childish and would ultimately eat into the trust in the relationship.
IMO, Regardless of how you view the power exchange of a D/s relationship, a pyl using passive-aggressive techniques to manipulate the PYL (however they choose to employ those techniques) will cause a shift making it a lesser experience over a period of time for both of them