Is the dominant's word law still? (92)

As it was, I wasn't picking an arguement with anyone, just defending myself. I really, really don't need anyone to tell me about being dominant and switch, famous or otherwise..

Now, what was the topic, again?

Edited 16 Jun 08, 2:00 PM by Jahc99

Love a lot, trust a few and learn to paddle your own canoe.

Not in a 24/7 situation but He listens to what I say, discuss it and then he decides ..lol Well what is the point of my submission if I just ignore him! He has only my best interests at heart.

He asked me not to speak to someone the other night on msn. I wish now I had listened to him as got caught in the middle of someone else's problems. next time I will listen I promise Sir.

fugger fugger fugger - love with all your heart and you will know both joy and sorrow.

I guess on the other thread, having read it a little (not in complete depth) it sparked the discussion that it can be the case that in this far from ideal world dominants do occasionally (shock horror) make requests that are not the best for their subs and sometimes have poor judgment or are just not very good dom/mes or even dom/mes at all come to that! - hence other people tend to jump onto the situation and try to figure it out - from the well-meaning angle of trying to support the submissive and ensure that they don't get damaged.

In the end it comes down to the people in the relationship and whether they are comfortable with the orders or rules of the dominant. (Of course this can be open to abuse as we well know but to take the discussion in that direction opens another can of worms.)

Social interaction with other people is a particularly touchy area and one in which people are often moved to comment, possibly because it is something which doesn't only affect dom and sub, but also the people they are, or were, interacting with. I was interested in SinPar's view about having the sub to herself for a while in the early stage of a relationship - interesting because it is a different point of view from my own and one which I have never heard expressed in quite that way before - because this has a valid rationale to it expressed quite seductively.

However, communications with other people are very delicate and a person's social life has a strong link to their emotional and mental health, being therefore an area in which I'd be reluctant to tamper except *perhaps* after being in the relationship for a period of years rather than weeks or months. You have to consider not only the submissive but also the other people in contact with them that you might be breaking them off from. I think a good social life and strong friendships encourage good mental health to flourish. Obviously I, as a dominant, will have an opinion on what relationships I consider to be 'good' for my submissive, but I can't be expected to form that opinion until I actually know something about those relationships and about the other people involved. If there was something that concerned me in this line, I would tell the submissive my concerns and state my intention of monitoring the situation so that I could see what was going on (I would of course make sure the other party knew of this).

I really dislike the idea of taking a submissive away from their contacts with others, as it seems to me insecure. To have an order in place that the sub must not seek another dom/me, or another sexual partner, or another play partner, are all things the dominant can put in place if s/he chooses, so if you do not trust your sub to abide by this, surely something is not yet right in the relationship?

"Be quiet and come with me. I won't betray you."

Yeah it was and it's one of those posts where the person really shines through.

You're gonna have to facesit. I'm addicted to ass.

Thoroughly enjoyed reading that.

* Honesty is the best policy *

What do we really owe to who and why?

I am quite in agreement that where submission is promised it should be given. And I am very willingly obedient to my mistress and hope, and entirely intend, that as our relationship develops her power to guide and control me will be absolute in all areas of my life.

But is it her right to expect that simply because she identifies as "a dominant", and I am "a sub"?

Is it bollocks! Get real for Christ's sake!

D/s is a relationship between individuals, not a game we all have to follow rules to. I feel as I do and am able to give commitment because as ONE UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL, who I have taken time to know as a real person and not just “a dominant”, my mistress possesses all the personal qualities to inspire in me the trust and respect to make serious commitments affecting my life, and the love to want to do so – uniquely so out of dozens of “dommes” I have known over many years.

The real question should be *from when* (and how, and why) does a dominants word *become* law.

I may be wrong, but I gleaned from the earlier thread that provoked this one that the subject under discussion was a brand new liaison between a dom and a sub (I'm not too sure whether they had even met yet). There is no relationship there yet in which anyone's word can be “law”. The two people under discussion don't fully know each other yet, so how can any binding commitment be promised and what right does the “dominant” have to expect to fuck with someone else's life outside their own private interaction?

D/s interaction takes a great many shapes and forms, from binding longterm relationships built on love and trust over time to people playing silly “virtual domination” games with others they have never met and know little or nothing about.

What about all those socially dysfunctional wank-bandits who endlessly demand “proof of devotion” over the email then go all evasive when you broach the subject of actually meeting, and disappear altogether as soon as you stop giving them wank fodder? (Yes, they do come in both sexes and men get them too!) In their own little virtual heads they are being “the dominant” in a “relationship”. But what kind of desperate fuckwit would ever accept their word as “law”?

Even taking things several steps further into real life, when as a few times I have been I was in a regular service arrangement with a lady I do not have a primary relationship with – and who accepts no “duty of care” outside the times I am serving her, then I would treat her word as “law” during all the time I was serving her. But what more beyond that, no matter how much I might genuinely respect her (and I wouldn't serve a mistress for long who I couldn't)? Just because I kiss her feet, call her “Mistress” and treat her with deference during the times I serve her, does that mean I am obliged to change my job, abandon old friends or alter my life outside our arrangement in any way on her say-so?

To answer my own question, a dominant's word becomes law when,

a) They accept and *are able to* (sorry, the other 99%) wisely and beneficially execute not just control, but responsibility for another's life

b) The submissive partner is able and willing, through trust established by *really* knowing that dominant, to voluntarily pledge themselves to that control without coercion or emotional blackmail of any kind (and how often does that happen?)

And to answer the OP, in those rare and special circumstances where both above conditions are met, the dominant's word ceases to be law when something alters in that relationship such that either of the above ceases to apply.

I AM THE GOD OF HELL-FIRE!.....but its my lunch break right now

Edited 17 Jun 08, 10:34 PM by BigOldHector

That's why for some people, check lists do help... so do long SM courtships.

I know I am not everyone's taste in a dominant. That's cool. I'm patient enough to wait to be the "right someone's" taste in a dominant. That's when things get interesting and long term.

SinPar

-- The weak are the most treacherous of us all. They come to the strong and drain them. They are bottomless. They are insatiable. They are always parched and always bitter. They are everyone's concern, and like vampires they suck our life's blood. (Bette Davis)