The selfish Dominant

[Croctden]

To truly master a dog you need to show it affection

There is a little bit of selfishness in everyone. There are times I'm wielding a bet and I'm only thinking of myself, surely. To me, however, there are also moments of tenders, when tears need to be wipped away, and a kiss bestowed. I apologize for neither. Such is the way I am.

I always try to keep the bond between us strong. Or I try. I perfer to call it enlightened self interest.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Re: To truly master a dog you need to show it affection

There is a little bit of selfishness in everyone. There are times I'm wielding a bet and I'm only thinking of myself, surely. To me, however, there are also moments of tenders, when tears need to be wipped away, and a kiss bestowed. I apologize for neither. Such is the way I am.

I always try to keep the bond between us strong. Or I try. I perfer to call it enlightened self interest.

Aftercare is always an area of shared intimacy which separates D/s from abuse in many cases. Unfortunately it is often ommitted by the inexperienced, or as you say, the unenlightened.

Catalina

 

[Croctden]

I've said it before and I'll say it again

If I'm angry, I don't Dom. BDSM is sexual (and for me possibly loving) play.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Re: I've said it before and I'll say it again

If I'm angry, I don't Dom. BDSM is sexual (and for me possibly loving) play.

Hopefully it would be standard for no-one to dominate when angry, or similarly under the influence of drugs or alcohol as these states impair judgement, but unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world. From your posts I always get the impression of someone on the responsible side of the equation.

C

 

[Pure]

Hi Francisco,

I said,


Originally posted by Pure
Hi F, 1)How is your self interested person with honor any different from Kant's moral agent? 2) Can you give an illustration of something your allegedly self interested dom-person does in a particular situation that the 'moral person' would not do? (Or do you hold that morality and enlightened, long-range self interest always coincide?)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Pure I would gladly answer your question but I can not relate to the moralistic person you describe. I simply do not understand that process maybe you could elaborate a bit on it.

====

I'll try to be brief. Usually a 'moral' choice is contrasted with one based purely on self interest, even long run.

Let M be the moral person (=makes the 'moral' choices regularly), S be the self interested one.

1) M, a waiter or waitress, made some extra tips in cash that can be concealed; s/he reports the income. S in the same position does not.

2) In a case we've already discussed, M is offered sex by someone else's Spouse, SES, and M thinks about the hurt to SES, imagines undergoing it, and so refuses; S takes the offer.

3) I'll give one other case. A sub, after some discussion, agrees as follows: "Master I will fuck any of your friends if ordered. I view that as service." The Master looks into it, and --after the agreement is made--finds one of his friends actually was involved with the sub previously; but the Master didn't know this when the agreement was made; he didn't deceive or withhold anything. The friend, F, informs the Master that he, F, was accused by her, the sub, of taking advantage' of her, and he F told her she was a professional victim. In short there was/is 'bad blood.'

Now, the 'moral' Master realizes that the sub didn't know that F was among his friends. So he doesn't 'use' the agreement with respect to F. The self interested master says to himself and her "I have an agreement. I hold you to it. I want you to fuck F." His aim is to test, and he believes that the emotional 'weight' of F will yield an extra impact for the event (but not a devastating one). It suits him to arrange for and see this impact.
-----

In the recent cases you've mentioned, and where you've said 'honor' is involved, you seem always to do what I've called the 'moral' choice: To behave as M, in the examples. You do label it 'selfish' etc. but maybe that is just a word choice. (Also suggesting it's just a label is that formerly, in relations to dom/mes you spoke of the need for principle and a higher standard of morality.)

What I don't see then, is any case where your allegedly 'selfish' dom/me does anything that isn't like M, above. I've seen no example from you of this dom/me (you) putting his interests or desires ahead of the sub's, as in the three cases above.*

best,
J.
=========


*I do see this self-interest in some of Eb's cases, where, for instance, the sub wants a certain procedure as the path to his 'coming.' Then she, after the procedure, more or less arbitrarily says[my words], "You are not to come. I choose that, and may well continue indefinitely to require control in the future, and if you don't like what I'm doing, there's the door."

So let this be a fourth example of a self interested person's behavior. I don't see you saying this to Catalina, except on a very temporary basis.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Re: Re: Re: The selfish Dominant

I am trying to look at the motivation of a Dominant concentrating on selfishness. I am trying to overlook little things as love and honour and trust. These to me are as essential as the selfishness of a Dominant.

I agree wholeheartedly. In My world one does not obtain and keep subs if love honor and trust do not reside in the relationship. It is not an issure for Me and Mine. My relationships with My subs are ongoing and rather permanent.


Let me put it slightly different, do you think a Dominant needs to have at the minimum a certain degree of self-interest?

I look at ongoing D/s relationships as the aligning to two self interested people. They are people who are travelling a parallet path, one Dominant, one submissive.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi Pure,

This is where you make the mistake.

Now, the 'moral' Master realizes that the sub didn't know that F was among his friends. So he doesn't 'use' the agreement with respect to F. The self interested master says to himself and her "I have an agreement. I hold you to it. I want you to fuck F." His aim is to test, and he believes that the emotional 'weight' of F will yield an extra impact for the event (but not a devastating one). It suits him to arrange for and see this impact.
-----

As long as it would not psychologically damage my slave I would order her to fuck F. I would actually welcome the chance to do this since it would be a real test of her commitment to me, not that it needs testing. The more difficult a task, the more satisfying it is to have done. The more experienced Dominant will weigh his need to control, humiliate and his need to test, against the possible damage to his slave.

The Dominant that makes a decision only based on short term thinking is not selfish, he is just plain stupid. Every decision taken has an effect, like EB has said before; you need to know your partner inside and out. You need to know what makes them tick and what does not, you need to know the ways to control and by which ways not to.

You make a mistake often made; the fact that a Dominant loves his slave, has a deep meaningful relationship with them, does not mean the Dominant will not put their own needs above their partners. The dominant submissive relationship is a symbiotic one. Both get what they need out of it. The slave needs as much to be dominated, to be controlled, as the Dominant needs to dominate and control. The Dominant is actually fulfilling the slave’s needs by putting the Dominant needs above the slave’s needs.


Francisco.

 

[Pure]

{Note added: This is not a response to F's posting just above}


So far as I can see, Francisco is saying the dom/me has a mixture of self interest and honor-related motives.

What's unclear is when, if ever, the self interested motives, according to him, lead to any different behavior than that generally considered righteous and moral; the upright neighborhood parson's treatment of his wife, in a standard marital situation.

It's clear where honor-related motives are supposed to operate as in the old example of Francisco recommending against being involved (not an instigator) in another's adultery.

{Note added, re F's most recent response:}

You do now agree to one example of self interested behavior, as in 'using' the sub's promise. I'm not sure why that shows I'm mistaken but, whatever. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Ebonyfire]

We're ultimately all just getting what we want in one form or another, and I'd hazard to guess that if we weren't then the vast majority of us wouldn't be involved in this type of relationship in the first place.

I totally agree.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi Pure,

I will clarify for you, the kind of ‘moral’ Master as you describe, IMO is not a Dominant at all. His main concern is his partner and although a very noble motive it is one that will not actually fulfil the needs of his partner. A sub needs to be dominated; a sub needs to feel that she is not in control but that the Dominant is.

By being too nice, by being too concerned by his partners feelings and forgetting his own, he becomes just a very nice vanilla partner. Equality does not exist in D/s or BDSM. What exists is the commitment made to protect them. Dominance in essence is putting your own needs above your partners, but you see, that is what your partner wants.

Francisco.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

All Dominants are selfish, just as all submissives are giving. That is the fucking point, isn't it? If a Dom isn't selfish, then he is 'bottoming from teh top', isn't he?

 

[Ebonyfire]

All Dominants are selfish, just as all submissives are giving. That is the fucking point, isn't it? If a Dom isn't selfish, then he is 'bottoming from teh top', isn't he?

Dominants give too. And I believe that subs are just as selfish. Otherwise it is not a match made in heaven! LOL

 

[Quint]

Dominants give too. And I believe that subs are just as selfish. Otherwise it is not a match made in heaven! LOL

Agreed. As I said before, sure, I do exactly what my dominant wants me to do. But I wouldn't do it if it weren't satisfying what I need myself. I'm not speaking on the microscopic level of "well, I'm sucking him off just because I like sucking dick." I'm talking about "I'm doing what he tells me, no matter how hard, unpleasant, or enjoyable, because I need to do what he tells me. For myself." The act is of giving. The motivation is self-serving at its best. And I don't think I'm alone or wrong in this.

 

[Quint]

<snip> Dominance in essence is putting your own needs above your partners, but you see, that is what your partner wants.

Francisco.

That is a terrific line.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Re: Re: Re: The selfish Dominant

Hello OSG,

As always your entry is intelligent, articulated and highly interesting. I do feel that there is some degree of manipulation a Dominant will have to resort to in a Master/slave partnership, but it depends how exactly you describe manipulation.

I also agree with you that if the only motivation of a Dominant was purely his self interest and a dominant would only act on those feelings the relationship could become very manipulative and to be honest also quite boring.

I am trying to look at the motivation of a Dominant concentrating on selfishness. I am trying to overlook little things as love and honour and trust. These to me are as essential as the selfishness of a Dominant.

Let me put it slightly different, do you think a Dominant needs to have at the minimum a certain degree of self-interest?

Francisco.

oh of course Sir...as i mentioned, i think selfishness is a natural characteristic of a true Dominant. to what degree depends on the individual (and of course other factors such as love), but it is always there.

it was nearing my bedtime so i did not post my complete thoughts...basically, i don't believe that a D/s and especially not a Master/slave relationship should EVER be about "i'll scratch your back, you scratch mine"....and if a Dominant does something for a submissive, in order to keep her happy/pleased so that she will in turn serve/please him better, that to me sounds more like a business deal than a relationship.

first let me describe the sort of submissive i am a bit....i do not like anyone to do anything JUST for me. let's say i'm in the mood for chinese food, and my Master's in the mood for mexcian. well, i would rather have the mexican food that i'm not really in the mood for, than to have my Master eat food that he doesn't have a yen for that particular night. probably a terrible analogy, but i'm trying, lol. i don't like anyone being unhappy, or discontent, or even put out of their way just slightly, for my sake. and i also just have never been comfortable with someone PURPOSELY doing anything to please me. it's one reason i hate hate hate receiving oral sex...most men do it because they want to please the girl, make her feel good, whatever. if i know a man's major motivation for doing anything is to please me, then i'm instantly turned off.

now as for the idea of serving better or pleasing better because one is getting what they want, personally i would question the submissiveness of someone who served not out of a need to serve and please others, but rather out of a need to please themselves. i submit because it is my nature, it is my instinct, it is who i am. i will not submit any better/more because someone is doing something for me (besides the fact that as i explained above, someone doing things just for me does not make me happy), and i will not submit any worse/less because i am not happy. i get my pleasure from pleasing, not from trying to be pleased.

all that to return to my original point, that a "i scratch your back, you scratch mine" manipulation does not imo have a place in a Master/slave relationship, even if love is not present, the major motivation of the Dominant/Master may be to be pleased...the major motivation of the submissive/slave should be to please. no trade off necessary.

i agree with this statement by Johnny:

"All Dominants are selfish, just as all submissives are giving. That is the fucking point, isn't it? If a Dom isn't selfish, then he is 'bottoming from teh top', isn't he?"

 

[Pure]

OSG said,

//basically, i don't believe that a D/s and especially not a Master/slave relationship should EVER be about "i'll scratch your back, you scratch mine"....and if a Dominant does something for a submissive, in order to keep her happy/pleased so that she will in turn serve/please him better, that to me sounds more like a business deal than a relationship. //

I agree OSG. I'd add that, for many male subs, it is indeed a business deal.

But what's going on if a sub provides a list of hard-limits-to-be-respected and soft-limits-to-be-pushed: Isn't s/he saying "You follow this [scratch my back the way I want and not otherwise] and I'll serve [scratch your back]."

Would you agree further that the following approach is dicey or muddled conceptually: "D gives a gift of dominance, and S gives the gift of submission"? I.e, there's an exchange of 'gifts'.

 

[ownedsubgal]

OSG said,

//basically, i don't believe that a D/s and especially not a Master/slave relationship should EVER be about "i'll scratch your back, you scratch mine"....and if a Dominant does something for a submissive, in order to keep her happy/pleased so that she will in turn serve/please him better, that to me sounds more like a business deal than a relationship. //

I agree OSG. I'd add that, for many male subs, it is indeed a business deal.

But what's going on if a sub provides a list of hard-limits-to-be-respected and soft-limits-to-be-pushed: Isn't s/he saying "You follow this [scratch my back the way I want and not otherwise] and I'll serve [scratch your back]."

>>>yes, that is the same thing...a business agreement, a this for that, and not what i would define as D/s.

Would you agree further that the following approach is dicey or muddled conceptually: "D gives a gift of dominance, and S gives the gift of submission"? I.e, there's an exchange of 'gifts'.

>>>yes. i never understood that whole "gift of submission" or "gift of Dominance" concept. i mean, it's supposed to be who you are, not something you do, or give, like one gives a present. it's a part of your nature. the PERSON should be the gift. submission or Dominance should be part of the package (person), not something that depends on x, y, and z being done or in place.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Something I see is that the submissive should get their pleasure from the service. My job as a Dominante is to be served.

 

[cellis]

Hi Francisco,

I remember asking about this 'out for number 1' question.

In one sense the dominant is as you say. He makes rules that are in his interest. He maintains the sub, just as a hunter maintains the dogs--they are a necessary part of a sport he enjoys. The hunter is not the equal of the dogs.

OTOH, you often have used 'out for number 1' in a bad sense. You described the person without morals as 'out for number 1'-- i.e., would 'take advantage' when it's in his interest; and you didn't like this.

Let's take a simple question: you make a promise: you tell your sub you'll spend a weekend together at the seaside. But when the time comes, you realize a favorite sports or entertainment event will happen the night you're supposed to leave. In short, you might enjoy it more than the sea side.

If a person is 'out for number 1' in the bad sense s/he'll break the promise. Put the sub's interests behind his own, and postpone or cancel the trip. Would you?

As another poster said, the 'equal sub idea seems to be incompatible with a dom/me who's 'out for number 1' in either sense.

Equal dom/sub is a kind of equal-romance; modern equality; a role play where no one caters to the other. where both persons' desires receive equal consideration. robert and elizabeth barrett browning.


regards,
J.

Because my entire relationship is built on my ability to trust Himself and the trust I place in His hands... then it is imperative that He be able to display some consistancy in His dealings with me....

We were just having a similiar conversation just this very evening about discipline, punishment and training.... one of the things He so eloquently stated was that any one can force something or someone to bend to their will... It takes a true Master to train someone to be as the way the Master wants them to....

 

[catalina_francisco]

osg, you and I are very alike in many ways and views. I understand your food choice analogy perfectly as it is also how I feel, but in so doing I also question if we are still doing the you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours so to speak. If our Master ate as we were in the mood for, we would not like it or feel comfortable with it....similarly the question of the purpose behind our receiving oral....it comes down to our preference for us to feel comfortable, which on the surface is to serve his need, but in so doing is also serving our own desire, so we are in effect we are being pleased by his choice of behaviour. A queer twist of fate, but reality all the same IMO, and one that gives food for much thought.

Catalina

 

[ownedsubgal]

osg, you and I are very alike in many ways and views. I understand your food choice analogy perfectly as it is also how I feel, but in so doing I also question if we are still doing the you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours so to speak. If our Master ate as we were in the mood for, we would not like it or feel comfortable with it....similarly the question of the purpose behind our receiving oral....it comes down to our preference for us to feel comfortable, which on the surface is to serve his need, but in so doing is also serving our own desire, so we are in effect we are being pleased by his choice of behaviour. A queer twist of fate, but reality all the same IMO, and one that gives food for much thought.

Catalina

that is definitely one way to look at it Catalina (gosh i love it when i can stay up late and just chat all nite like this)....but i guess it all comes down to WHY you submit in the first place. if you submit because you know it will satisfy you to satisfy someone else, or if you submit simply because you are alive and that is your natural reaction/response to the world. not because you WANT to, but because it's who you are.

yes, it's a need of mine to please others, so when i please someone, usually, i will find fulfillment in that. getting what i want. but that is not my motivation for submitting. my submission is not about what i want, it's about who i am. there have been many times i have submitted when i did not wish to, and when it was very unpleasant for me in every way imagineable. submitting is not something i can control...it's not something i can NOT do, if i don't want to. just like i can't will myself into growing a penis (giggling my bum off over here), i can't will myself into not giving in to someone who wishes to use me or make use of me in some way. so i don't think i fall under the "i scratch you, you scratch me" category, although i do see how for many that could be the reality deep down.

 

[Justina123]

There are times when I absolutely am NOT in the mood to play, to suck him, to be flogged or spanked. I am tired, I have a million kid-related things on my mind, I'm struggling with a migraine, etc. etc. For any or all these reasons, I do not want to go down to the kitchen and rustle him up a snack, etc.

But...I do it anyway. And he knows I don't want to play, suck, serve, etc. But he IS in the mood, he WANTS it, etc. And he tells me, "It's not about you. It's about me."

While at the moment I am truly not "enjoying" any of this.... yet, somewhere deep inside, I am proud of myself if I do what is asked, and not just grudgingly, but with some modicum of cheerfulness. That's just the way I am. I think it's a good part of what makes me submissive.

And I absolutely believe that his apparent selfishness is not as unfeeling as it seems...we both know it is part of his personality and his dominance and what draws us together and I find his seeming self-centeredness very attractive.

He may or may not acknowledge my obedience later... a "you did well" and some stroking can make me all warm and fuzzy inside. Or, strangely, NOT having that acknowledgement may also make me feel just as self-satisfied, as his attitude that what I did was just normal and not worthy of any special praise can also feed some inner need. (And what truly amazes me is he almost always seems to know which is the better choice...)

Can't say I really "understand" it, I'm no philosopher, but I've enjoyed this thread, it's got me thinking, lol.

- justina

 

[FungiUg]

I regard dominance/submission play as a win-win arrangement. The submissive gets the dominance she craves, the dominant gets the submission he craves.

So in a way, both parties can be selfish, and yet still be giving the other person what they need.

Having said that, I think anyone purely motivated by selfishness wouldn't make a good dominant. There's a large element of care and responsibility required from a good dominant. And I think it helps to be empathic as well (to be able to get into the mind of the submissive.)

Similarly, a submissive who is purely selfish wouldn't make a good submissive. Again, care and thoughfulness are required -- dominants are only human, and hence imperfect, so a submissive needs to do some thinking for herself, not rely purely on the dominant.

I don't live in a 24x7 arrangement, so I don't know how this works, but my suspicion is that any live in arrangement is likely to be even less selfishly motivated than play sessions.

So selfish motivation is fine, but it's unlikely to be the only level of motivation.

 

[Netzach]

I would not call it selfishness. I would call it a self-regard, basically knowing myself and knowing the things I'm not willing to go without. I know the feeling I need, and I need it in a relationship of significance, otherwise, as Eb succinctly puts it, there's the door. I can get that feeling in myriad ways, some physical and some not, and I don't really care how I acheive it. It's a feeling of being served, honored, even revered, for me, for who I am. Period. Because, in certain specific and crucial ways, I kick ass. I totally rule.

The only way to get the this miraculous point B spot, in my mind, is to adopt the mindset that new parents go on and on about till I want to puke, but it's true, it's true in any position of serious psychic power over other people:

It's not about me anymore, it's about US.

It's definitely not about the bottom, that's clear, his enjoyment, his cock springing to life, all that jazz is either because he put himself in my path and I have that affect or because I'm feeling magnanimous. (And sometimes I feel magnanimous)

But it's definitely not about me either or only me. I can make all those things happen to a point, even if it means buying green plastic army guys and playing take over the world in my room, if it's just about me it's about that empty.

There's a lot of responsibility to this gig. Gifts are temporary things, dumb analogy, a gift is just a piece of crap that's going to go on the landfill. No it's not a gift. It's honor. It's my word, it's my promise.

And yes, that promise includes the bit about doing stuff just because I'm the damn Top. That's the attractive part that's being signed on for.

 

[Peter2002]

Balancing the macro with the micro

A very interesting conversation. At the risk of sounding like a social scientist I think it's a mtter of balancing the macro (the full relationship) with the micro (the moment, the minute, the scene). Of course she knows I'm selfish. But she also knows I'm selfish for her. And that encompasses my desire to discipline her, to use her, and to comfort and even to pamper her. It may begin with "me", but it cannot be complete without "her." It's like trying to discern the begining of a circle.