the pyshological side of the "slave"

[00Syd]

So

I read a few of your posts and I think I have met the type you are.

Just to make a theoretical example, regarding bondage clothes. If your dom was to give up on clothes and throw them all out, every last one in the trash, would you sit there, fidgeting and thinking, “did you have to throw out all of them?”

Am I in the right ballpark here?

What, you think you've met my "type"?

Great.

If my dom was to give up on Bondage clothes? Is that what your talking about? If he was to give up on bondage clothes and throw them all out (and yes this is very theoretical since neither of us owns any fetish or bondage wear) I would probably say hallelujah and fetch the torch. I hate fetish and bondage wear. SO UGLY.

But WHAT IN THE LIVING FUCK does my opinion on bondage wear have to do with my "type" that you have so sagely gleaned?

I really am curious what you think my "type" is. Really.

 

[ZRT]

Since we're on wordplay with Syd's name in this thread, I think Mt. Sydsuvius is rumbling mightily right now.

 

[myinnerslut]

i think syd's type doesnt like to be typed

 

[rida]

I love this

Thank you

Thank you, Syd, for drawing attention to Rida's post. I missed it earlier, and this is a huge part of the sexual dynamics in my own relationship.

I have two relationships going on at the moment: Hubby and the Sadist.
As the second is still in its definition stage, I'll focus on the main and most important one.

With Hubby, even thou from the outside it would look more like a "bedroom kink only" type of relationship, the reality is that I have a leash. The leash is very long and gives me a lot of freedom, but the truth is that if I pull further than its lengths there will be consequences. And since they will be not pleasant (we are not talking BDSM punishments here, we are talking strain on the relationship), I am very mindful to walk the line.

Before adding the D/s layer to our marriage, I would resent the consequences as they felt arbitrary. Since realizing the D/s undercurrent of our marriage, we are now aware of the presence of the leash, its length and of the fact that it is ultimately up to his whim to shorten it whenever he wishes.

And curiously enough the relationship feels now more M/s and yet the leash feels longer.

i think syd's type doesnt like to be typed

*snort*

 

[ZRT]

i think syd's type doesnt like to be typed

You win.

 

[Adakgirl]

Thibbbttttt!!!!!!!

(BTW - that is the sound of me sticking my tongue out and blowing a raspberry)

I'm sometimes willing to put my PYL's wants, needs and desires before my own but not always. Actually, I'm more often thinking about myself. But I'm still a REALLY FUCKING GOOD SUBMISSIVE.

So, no offense to you personally Adakgirl, but that shit drives me crazy.

As I knew it would dear woman... as I knew it would

 

[Adakgirl]

Yeah, I don't know. I just never think "ok" before thinking about whether or not I want to do whatever it is that's being asked of me,
(neither do I and that has nothing to do with what I said really)

and I very often think about what I want and what I need before I think about what my PYL wants and needs. But, I don't know. Maybe I'm not describing the way I think very well and misrepresenting what's actually going on.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking about your wants and needs first then weighing them against your PLY's wants and needs, in order to find a balance... again...imop you are posting in reaction to the surface of my words and not delving a bit deeper behind the meaning.


I don't know.

It just really bothers me when these broad statements (that are generally agreed upon) are made about what submissives should be or do to be good submissives and then realize that, oh hey, I don't really fit that.

By what I have read... you certainly do fit that, you just fit it in your own style and manner. So when you read it written out blatantly in black and white...it seems alien to you, offensive even. You probably ARE a damned good submissive, however, in order to be a damned good submissive you ARE putting your PLY's wants needs and desires before your own regardless of who's you think of first and regardless of whether you realize it or not. When it comes down to it, you are.

But, again, its all in that other thread. Go there for my feelings on the matter.

If given the choice, or if given a way to finagle the situation, yeah I'm more likely to do what... I wouldn't say what makes me happy, but what is more comfortable for me. I would never do something that would make my PYL unhappy, if I knew that that would be the result. But if there is something I can do that is more comfortable for me, that fulfills my needs, and yes, that makes me happy without causing discomfort or unhappiness in my PYL, then most likely I'm going to do that.

And I don't think that makes me less submissive. I think it just makes me a different kind of submissive than most people are used to running into.

Right there you just said it yourself. You would never do something that would make your PLY unhappy. Read your own words. What do you think they mean? That basic premise has nothing to do with being any less or more. It has to do with being at all.

 

[Adakgirl]

I don't care, let the shit hit the fan if need be, argue until you are blue in the face, change the wording, philosophize it to death, dress it up so it is unrecognizable and therefore easier to handle. It it still won't change the fact that putting your PLY's wants needs and desires before your own is the basis and the backbone of what submission is all about.

 

[MisterSir]

Point: Never doing anything to make one's PYL unhappy is not quite the same as putting their desires first and doing everything to make them happy. Not getting into this argument, just a point.

 

[CutieMouse]

Point: Never doing anything to make one's PYL unhappy is not quite the same as putting their desires first and doing everything to make them happy. Not getting into this argument, just a point.

Point: It is impossible to never make someone unhappy - supersubmissive, or not. However, it can be an excellent way to [eventually] cause oneself a hell of a lot of [perfectionism based] stress.

(Also avoiding the argument, and just making a point. )

 

[MisterSir]

Point: It is impossible to never make someone unhappy - supersubmissive, or not. However, it can be an excellent way to [eventually] cause oneself a hell of a lot of [perfectionism based] stress.

(Also avoiding the argument, and just making a point. )

True. Replace "never doing yadda yadda yadda" with "Endeavouring to never make one's PYL unhappy".

 

[00Syd]

Point: Never doing anything to make one's PYL unhappy is not quite the same as putting their desires first and doing everything to make them happy. Not getting into this argument, just a point.

*Ding ding ding ding ding*

 

[JMohegan]

I don't care, let the shit hit the fan if need be, argue until you are blue in the face, change the wording, philosophize it to death, dress it up so it is unrecognizable and therefore easier to handle. It it still won't change the fact that putting your PLY's wants needs and desires before your own is the basis and the backbone of what submission is all about.

It won't change your opinion on the subject, that's clear. No problem. Your view of what's "fact" here is no more or less valid than anyone else's.

I'd say that submission is about obedience, and trusting the D-type to address your wants, needs, and desires - on his own timetable, and in his own way.

A lot of the emphasis on service doesn't resonate with me as a descriptor for power-based relationships. I've observed many non-kinky relationships in which offering service was a natural part of the healthy, loving bond.

 

[JMohegan]

Well, I do think deferring to the PYL's will is kind of basic non-bedroom submission, but I must say that plenty of self-identified subs and slaves claim to put their PYL first and then wrangle what they want out of the PYL. So I hate to bag on you for being honest! It's a good question though - if you set out to please the PYL based on reward/good feelings/carrot for you and not because he said so, but he is always pleased, does that mean it's not submission?

If a tree falls in a forest...

The cat model of submission.

It doesn't work for me, but it apparently works quite well for someone I respect.

 

[eastern sun]

It won't change your opinion on the subject, that's clear. No problem. Your view of what's "fact" here is no more or less valid than anyone else's.

I'd say that submission is about obedience, and trusting the D-type to address your wants, needs, and desires - on his own timetable, and in his own way.

A lot of the emphasis on service doesn't resonate with me as a descriptor for power-based relationships. I've observed many non-kinky relationships in which offering service was a natural part of the healthy, loving bond.

Take a look at most power-based relationships and it's all about one person serving the more powerful/higher status/employer's etc. interests. Even at the level of obedience to arbitrary directions, the obedient one is still serving at the will of the other.

In your opinion, what else is at play? (Assuming that we're talking about relationships that include kinky sexual activities as well, a point we usually take for granted.)

 

[eastern sun]

Take a look at most power-based relationships and it's all about one person serving the more powerful/higher status/employer's etc. interests. Even at the level of obedience to arbitrary directions, the obedient one is still serving at the will of the other.

In your opinion, what else is at play? (Assuming that we're talking about relationships that include kinky sexual activities as well, a point we usually take for granted.)

In thinking a little further, I can see how a relationship that's primarily based on humiliation and/or degradation may not have a service component.

But I still don't understand, JMohegan, how you could think emphasis on service doesn't describe a power-based relationship.

 

[JMohegan]

Take a look at most power-based relationships and it's all about one person serving the more powerful/higher status/employer's etc. interests. Even at the level of obedience to arbitrary directions, the obedient one is still serving at the will of the other.

In your opinion, what else is at play? (Assuming that we're talking about relationships that include kinky sexual activities as well, a point we usually take for granted.)

A concrete example may explain my perspective on this.

Husband has been working hard at his desk, in the yard, whatever. He'd like a drink.

Scenario 1 - Wife guesses that he wants a drink and brings it to him, without prompting.

Scenario 2 - Husband calls wife and asks her to bring a drink. She isn't particularly busy at the moment, doesn't mind helping, would only be minimally inconvenienced, and promptly and happily brings it.

Scenario 3 - Husband calls wife and asks her to bring a drink. She's swamped with her own stuff at the moment, and says so. He tells her to drop whatever she's doing and bring the drink anyway. What happens next?


My observation is that 1 & 2 happen all the time in healthy, loving relationships of any flavor. The what happens next issue in 3 is the key to distinguishing between flavors of relationships.

In this context, I'd say that "service" only has power-based meaning when it shifts from a voluntary offering to obedience.

 

[ecstaticsub]

It won't change your opinion on the subject, that's clear. No problem. Your view of what's "fact" here is no more or less valid than anyone else's.

I'd say that submission is about obedience, and trusting the D-type to address your wants, needs, and desires - on his own timetable, and in his own way.

A lot of the emphasis on service doesn't resonate with me as a descriptor for power-based relationships. I've observed many non-kinky relationships in which offering service was a natural part of the healthy, loving bond.

The part in bold is what my D/s relationship is really all about. I can't say I necessary put his needs, wants and desires first because in reality he doesn't always put himself first. But I always try to be obedient. Sometimes what he orders is actually more of something for myself then him. But he orders and I obey.

Now of course, there are many time where what he wants is inconvenient, or difficult or undesirable to me but I do it anyway.

But my submission is much more about simple, unquestionable, unhesitating obedience than putting his needs first.

(I'm also not saying I am always perfect and that sometimes I don't question or hesitate but that is the goal)

 

[JMohegan]

In thinking a little further, I can see how a relationship that's primarily based on humiliation and/or degradation may not have a service component.

But I still don't understand, JMohegan, how you could think emphasis on service doesn't describe a power-based relationship.

Your husband does many things that serve you, and your relationship.

Earns money, functions as "Master" (on whatever terms that has meaning for him, and for you), performs some household chores/child watching/whatever, commits himself to the family and relationship, and so on.

The difference between what he does in service to the relationship, and what you do in service to the relationship, is that he decides who does what, and when. That's how I see it.

 

[JMohegan]

The part in bold is what my D/s relationship is really all about. I can't say I necessary put his needs, wants and desires first because in reality he doesn't always put himself first. But I always try to be obedient. Sometimes what he orders is actually more of something for myself then him. But he orders and I obey.

Now of course, there are many time where what he wants is inconvenient, or difficult or undesirable to me but I do it anyway.

But my submission is much more about simple, unquestionable, unhesitating obedience than putting his needs first.

(I'm also not saying I am always perfect and that sometimes I don't question or hesitate but that is the goal)

Yes, exactly. This is the model that works for me as well.

 

[eastern sun]

Your husband does many things that serve you, and your relationship.

Earns money, functions as "Master" (on whatever terms that has meaning for him, and for you), performs some household chores/child watching/whatever, commits himself to the family and relationship, and so on.

The difference between what he does in service to the relationship, and what you do in service to the relationship, is that he decides who does what, and when. That's how I see it.

Thanks for explaining your thinking. It makes sense, but in my experience, it gets even more complicated in real life.

I am usually (though not always) obedient when he is standing next to me. But I can't tell you the number of times he has asked me to do something while he was gone and I have failed to do it. My "disobedience" arises for any number of reasons, ranging from the avoidable to the unavoidable.

In our particular M/s relationship, disobedience is as likely to follow as obedience at about a 35/65 ratio (which is better than it was ten years ago )

That's why we call it "slavery," because the consequences of disobedience are part of the equation.

As such, with the expectation of obedience firmly established, our power-based relationship reflects your definition.

However, I can only avoid being disobedient (and I mean this quite literally) if I keep service-orientation in my mind like a mantra. The only way I can begin to put other people's interests first on a regular basis is if I define my role as a "service-provider."



On the other hand, now that you've got me thinking along these lines, hanging on to the idea of service (in which I am still an active agent) over simple obedience might be yet another way to retain power . . . .

Hmm. Now, that's an interesting thought.

 

[eastern sun]

The part in bold is what my D/s relationship is really all about. I can't say I necessary put his needs, wants and desires first because in reality he doesn't always put himself first. But I always try to be obedient. Sometimes what he orders is actually more of something for myself then him. But he orders and I obey.

Now of course, there are many time where what he wants is inconvenient, or difficult or undesirable to me but I do it anyway.

But my submission is much more about simple, unquestionable, unhesitating obedience than putting his needs first.

(I'm also not saying I am always perfect and that sometimes I don't question or hesitate but that is the goal)

This is so hard to accomplish, especially in a 24/7 relationship with children, that I have used the service model to protect myself from the idea that I am an utter failure.

On the other hand, I am willing to consider that I may be using the service model to let myself off the hook . . . and will take another look at that.

 

[nh23]

A concrete example may explain my perspective on this.

Husband has been working hard at his desk, in the yard, whatever. He'd like a drink.

Scenario 1 - Wife guesses that he wants a drink and brings it to him, without prompting.

Scenario 2 - Husband calls wife and asks her to bring a drink. She isn't particularly busy at the moment, doesn't mind helping, would only be minimally inconvenienced, and promptly and happily brings it.

Scenario 3 - Husband calls wife and asks her to bring a drink. She's swamped with her own stuff at the moment, and says so. He tells her to drop whatever she's doing and bring the drink anyway. What happens next?


My observation is that 1 & 2 happen all the time in healthy, loving relationships of any flavor. The what happens next issue in 3 is the key to distinguishing between flavors of relationships.

In this context, I'd say that "service" only has power-based meaning when it shifts from a voluntary offering to obedience.

Our relationship encompasses all three, as I figure most M/s, D/s relationships do. I don't think I'm getting what you're saying. Would you describe examples 1 and 2 as vanilla and only 3 as some form of power exchange?

 

[nh23]

Your husband does many things that serve you, and your relationship.

Earns money, functions as "Master" (on whatever terms that has meaning for him, and for you), performs some household chores/child watching/whatever, commits himself to the family and relationship, and so on.

The difference between what he does in service to the relationship, and what you do in service to the relationship, is that he decides who does what, and when. That's how I see it.

I do get you here totally. This is how our M/s dynamic runs. I guess I never really thought about him being Master, or child watching etc..as part of service, but you're right.

 

[JMohegan]

Our relationship encompasses all three, as I figure most M/s, D/s relationships do. I don't think I'm getting what you're saying. Would you describe examples 1 and 2 as vanilla and only 3 as some form of power exchange?

No, I'm saying 1 and 2 happen routinely in non-kinky relationships, but power-based relationships encompass all three.

That's why I consider 3 to be the defining element of a power-based relationship. Obedience is the distinguishing factor.