O_and_P's profile . O_and_P's homepage . O_and_P group posts
 |
| Tanos |
on Tue 26 Jan 10, 8:06 PM to the O_and_P group.
I think it's taken for granted that the best things about dominants and owners tend to be transferable from one relationship to another: skills, experience, self-awareness and self-acceptance of one's desires and right to receive service etc. However, what about the submissives' side of things?
You occasionally see people talking about one owner selling a slave on to another, but on closer examination these always appear to be a way of formalising (or even "sexing up") the transition from having a concerned ex, to having a new relationship with someone else. It's not really slavery that's being sold on or transferred: a new relationship is established and then built up on its own terms.
You also see people advertising themselves as "well trained", but even with the ideas of ongoing training as a way of looking at maintaining focus, discipline, and development over time, I'm not so sure how genuinely transferable training by one owner or dominant to the next one really is.
How do you see these issues of transferability of the special stuff we develop inside relationships? Do you see it all like skills you might put on your CV and start using from day one in a new job? Or is it like the feelings of love and shared experiences that are specific to a romantic relationship?
And do you agree with my assumption that the dom side of things is mostly transferable - at least when dealing with the same sort situations (eg "the sub has a phobia - what sorts of things work?")
Regards,
Tanos
Edited Tue 26 Jan 10, 8:29 PM by Tanos
| 26 Jan 10, 8:18 PM relaxed1 UK(BR), 6 yrs  |
A very interesting issue. Whilst I see many of the skills and experiences I have as transferable, in many ways they're not - in the sense that each new person is an individual who needs to be related to as such. The acquired knowledge is transferable, of course, and grows with each new person with whom I'm involved. As to submissives, it would be a bit dull if they were all stamped out with a cookie cutter; their hopes, fears and aspirations make them all different. If it were otherwise, then one 'failed' relationship would imply that we should just give up, since the next one would be the same, with the same expected outcome, surely. "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking up at the stars" - Oscar Wilde | ||
| 26 Jan 10, 8:47 PM TheFalconer UK(S), 6 yrs |
I'd say that experience, self-awareness and acceptance are equally transferable for both Dom and sub. More broadly when it comes to "skills", I'd say that it largely comes down to what you consider relevant skills for a D/s relationship. I think there's always likely to be some degree of transferability for both Dom and sub, but ultimately the value of it will depend on the compatibilities in the new relationship. I think that the ideas of being "well trained" as a platonic ideal, along with associated ideas of subs being sold on etc., all only really work if you assume that all Dominants have identical desires for a sub. As that's a nonsensical suggestion, I don't see that being "well trained" as an abstract idea has any value. "Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace." - Oscar Wilde | ||
| 26 Jan 10, 9:22 PM crystaltips 4 yrs |
I have just been reading Raven Kaldera and Joshua on internal enslavement (complete with a mention that the idea originated with Tanos) and this thread led me to wondering if a slave could be transferred after achieving internal enslavement. I'll apologise now in case the answer is obvious and I have misunderstood. | ||
| 26 Jan 10, 9:36 PM Tanos UK(M), 14 yrs   |
In their Dear Raven and Joshua book? I've started it properly and dipped into a lot of it, and it does finally look like an unambiguously recommendable book on M/s, that's fairly complete. It's a good summary of what was the consensus on the TSR boards in 2007/8-ish, that Raven and Joshua themselves played a large part in hammering out.
Well, that's what started me thinking about the whole question of transferability, since the Internal Enslavement model is very much that slaves become enslaved to a particular owner as a state of mind that attaches them to that owner. I can't see how this would be transferable really - a bit like being in love in that respect. This is in contrast to other models of M/s: eg a common Gorean one where girls develop a sense of themselves as in submission to all men to some extent, owned by a particular master but saleable by him to another, equivalently entitled man, on a whim. (I don't think that works, btw.) Regards, Tanos | ||
| 27 Jan 10, 7:33 AM mia UK(M), 4 yrs      |
But you can be in love with someone, then not be. It doesn't happen over night (in most cases) and sometimes twinges of longing for the person you once loved can come back. But you use rationale and logic to move yourself from this intense emmotional state to not being in it, or it can be done over a period of time subconciously. Perhaps there is a similar thing with IE. The slave was a person before being a slave, so just needs to 'relearn' this, much like one half of a couple was once a single person and can go back to being this, despite how hard it might be at first. mia, x "Passion should believe itself irresistible. It should forget civility and consideration and all the other curses of a refined nature. Above all, it should never ask for leave where there is a right of way." @Manchester | ||
| 27 Jan 10, 8:14 AM x_flaire_x UK(OX), 10 yrs |
I think it is better to start with a anew, a fresh page, with each Dominant. The training received from one Master maybe very enjoyable for him, but rather annoying for another. For example, Master A might require his coffee made from freshly ground beans of a particular variety, served with cream and brown sugar in separate jug and pot at a specific time in the drawing room. Master B, on the other hand, would be driven berserk by the ceremony and wants a mug of shop's own coffee on his desk in the next five minutes. Each Dominant, like each man, is different. His wants and desires are specific. Therefore, for a submissive 'changing hands' she must forget and refocus on her new owner. She must mould herself to his wants. f x | ||
| 27 Jan 10, 3:10 PM shy_sarah UK(M), 4 yrs |
I think it's impossible to enter into a new relationship without having been affected by the previous one in some way. Certainly some practical skills you learn specifically for one person may not be transferable to the next, and some will, obviously. The more interesting point is the psychological changes and adjustments you make each time. Personally my pleasure as a submissive is often gained by pleasing my dom, though with each passing D/s relationship I'm finding that I am happier when doing that within (or close to) certain parameters. Perhaps it's not so much about transferable skills and more about evolution of the submissive as a whole? Compliance for fun? Hell yes. | ||
| 27 Jan 10, 5:41 PM littlenic UK(KT), 5 yrs |
Echoing the latter posts on the thread, for me it's less about transferable skills (my competence at curtseying as I leave the room is no longer an issue), and more about a) the knowledge I've gained about what I need (and indeed, don't need) to thrive in a relationship, and b) the ability I've gained, through practice, to let my own needs come second to those of a partner. (Training in the sense that Tanos now talks about, I think.) I'd say that's what I transfer - and that they're both probably way more valuable in easing the path of a future relationship than knowing how to make treacle sponge in the exact way preferred by a previous dominant (for example). | ||
| 27 Jan 10, 6:35 PM cinder UK(CR), 6 yrs |
I'm with the skills-don't-really-matter-in-an-underling camp. They can be taught - Traits are more important. Re: your last paragraph. I agree to a point as long as the boss is aware that even if his/her charge is an object they still have individual quirks and foibles and may need moulding in a different way to someone else. A good boss knows his/her staff well and uses the right technique for each person. More emphasis on knowledge, less on skills. If that makes sense. N x | ||
| 27 Jan 10, 6:39 PM Zarabeth UK(TW), 3 yrs |
The best things about submissives are also transferable. The skills I have developed over the years of dealing with Dominants, not one of whom was ever exactly like any of the others, are not only transferable but honed and perfected with each new person I encounter. I would consider such skills to include: developing my judgement as to what makes a Dominant suitable for me, learning to interact with Dominants with diverse personality and learning styles, and understanding how to discuss my needs without taking control of the relationship ('managing upwards' is a concept I have recently been dealing with at work). In regards to the transferability of training, knowing how Master X takes his coffee, or how he wants his socks folded is obviously not especially helpful when serving Master Y. However, exposure to the types of issues that Dominants have preferences with can assist in knowing the right questions to ask, right down to whether the preference is for the submissive to proactively ask questions to learn preferences, or wait to be told.
People skills related to dominance are generally transferable, eg skills used in finding out what makes a submissive tick, or techniques that have been helpful in building trust in the past and might be helpful in a new relationship. What appears to be less transferable are aspects of the relationship that developed with a particular submissive being used over and over with successive submissives without regard to their individuality, eg doing scenes exactly the same way so that any submissive (or even a rolled rug) could be slotted in without a change, or giving out the exact set of rules over and over in every relationship, regardless of how inappropriate. Mari |
