Posted by cerrynn1 on Tue 31 Aug 04, 2:33 PM to cerrynn1's blog.
As some of you may have picked up from fleeting, sarcastic remarks in some of my other blogs, I'm not especially sympathetic to the concept of "training". Larra, in her next-to-last weblog, stated very well a number of the same reasons why I am skeptical, although she was substantially more diplomatic than I am likely to be if allowed to state my opinions on this particular topic.
She wrote (among many other insightful and pertinent remarks), "I feel that as every Dominant is different there is no point in being trained ( whatever that is) by someone that you are not going to be in a relationship with."
Precisely.
I assume that there are submissives for whom the idea of "being trained" is a kink/fetish/button-pusher in and of itself. Simply put, they are aroused by the notion of being trained. That's wonderful! Fine! I wish them all happiness ... "blessings on your sheets", as one of my former university professors used to say. But when people (either doms *or* subs) start implying that "training" is necessary for *all* submissives, I start getting testy.
Matou never "trained" me. Certainly there are things that he likes, that I learned to do because I learned that he liked me to do them. If I can please him it pleases me, so it's in my interest as well as his that I learned those things. Here is one *very* minor example: during the very first weekend that we ever spent together I learned that he prefers coffee to tea, that in his view (mine too, as it happens) instant coffee simply does not qualify as coffee, that proper coffee is made in a cafetiere (with water just below boiling temperature, then allowed to brew for at least four minutes), and that he takes his black with two sugars. Since learning all this, I now invariably prepare hot beverages for him in line with those preferences (well, sometimes the four minutes gets cut a little short if time is pressing). I guess some might say that Matou "trained" me to serve him satisfactorily in this area. I *wouldn't* call it that - - I would say that I wanted to please him in whatever ways I could, even small ones, and adjusted my behaviour accordingly. But yes, I suppose you could say that's a small example of "training".
Or maybe not. Matou reminded me just now that *he* has learned that I like *my* coffee with *no* sugar, and with milk or without milk depending on my mood and the time of day and the relevant planetary alignments. Was his learning that a matter of me training *him*? Hmmmm ... I think *not*! Rather, as Matou pointed out, learning such things are part of having *social skills* ... something I would like to think we all possess to at least some degree.
But back to the point: regardless of what one calls it - - training, learning to please one's partner, social skills -- how would my learning to prepare Matou's coffee consistently the way *he* likes it help me with another Dom? Short answer: it wouldn't.
A more BDSM-ish example: I learned early on that Matou enjoys undressing me before we play in public (and I quite like it, too!). So when we are at a club or party, when we play I never strip off myself before hopping up on the bench or cross or whatever. I wait, we look into each other's eyes, and he undresses me slowly and sensuously ... *then* and only then do I assume whatever position is called for.
But other dominants prefer things done differently. When I play with other dominants, I do what *they* prefer.
In some ways I guess I can understand a dominant "training" a submissive to do things the way s/he likes them done. My own preference would be to call such an educational process "teaching" rather than "training" ("training" to me suggests a certain unfortunate similarity to my own ongoing attempts to "train" my dogs *not* to stick their muzzles into the crotches of unwary visitors to Matou Mansions, but no matter). But why would any dominant want some *other* dominant to "train" his/her submissive for him/her? How on earth would the "trainer" know what the "end-user" dominant wanted? Unless the end-user dominant *told* the "trainer" what they wanted, of course ... but in that case, if the end-user dominant *knows* what s/he wants, why isn't s/he doing the "training" him/herself? I remain perplexed ... but then that's nothing new! <weg>
However ... my biggest problem with the whole "training" thing remains (as I mentioned above) the occasionally-expressed dictum that "All Submissives Must Be Trained", as well as its frequent corollary, the implication that there are such things as "recognised standard submissive" practices, positions, etc., which go beyond indidual dominants' individual and idiosyncratic preferences. To both of which I say (diplomatically and oh-so-submissively) ... bollocks. If it gets your juices flowing to conduct your BDSM activities within the role-play context of "training", fine. But the notion that some all- wonderful, all-powerful, all-knowing "Master-Trainer" can turn you into a desirable all-purpose property for the use of *any* dominant is just ridiculous.
Moving right along here ...
I've been following the on-and-off thread about "compromises" with interest. I wonder if part of the reason why we are often reluctant to admit to "compromising", or to being willing to "compromise", has to do with connotations carried by the word itself. I suspect that many people, when they hear the word "compromise", think in terms of giving up something that may have been important ... "settling for less".
I think most people who have met "the right person" for them will admit that the one they love is probably *not* an exact match for every fantasy they have ever had. But does that necessarily mean that they have sacrificed something, "settled", "given up" some much desired quality? Or is it something else? Could it even be that the person who is right for them actually gives them *more* than they dreamed of, *different* qualities than those they thought were so important?
In other weblogs I have mentioned that I experienced BDSM-D/s fantasies from an early age. In one sense I think I was very fortunate, in that I never developed a clear-cut picture of who, or even what type, of person I wanted to do All This with. I never could come up with a satisfactory "face" to put on the top/Dom/sadist/whatever who -- in my fantasies -- was doing all these wonderful, awful, delicious things to me. The space where that person would be was, in my dreams and fantasies, always foggy, shadowy, indistinct. In her early 1970s novel *Fear of Flying* Erica Jong wrote about her fantasy of The Zipless Fuck. In my fantasies I had The Faceless Flogger. Even after I started doing a few things with my ex-husband, my ideal fantasy Dominant stayed in the shadows.
Then after many years of fantasising about BDSM, I started actually doing it. Moreover, I met and played with Matou. From our very first scene onward, *he* became ... and still is ... the Dominant of my fantasies as well as of my real life. When I indulge in an SM fantasy now, his is the face I see. I now think that I am quite lucky that my imagination never allowed me to construct too precise a picture of what I wanted my "ideal Dominant" to be. I had no pre- conceived images, so I was open and ready and able to appreciate all the wonderful qualities Matou has to offer.
Did I "compromise"? No. I found more than I ever dreamed possible.
Ai shiteru, Sensei ... *itsumo*.
your cerrynn{M}
P.S. To all who wrote to me after my last (somewhat whinging!) weblog ... thank you! You are all sweethearts, and your kind words were very much appreciated.
Edited Tue 31 Aug 04, 2:39 PM by cerrynn1
