Training or Breaking? (98)

It seems to me that training someone and breaking them are two completely different things. In training we may use a range of techniques, both physical and psychological, to induce patterns of pleasing behaviour, tailored to the individual psyche. Using discipline, correction and reward, imposing rituals, rules and learned behaviours, we create a form of servitude.

But to break someone, it seems to me we move from form to content. We need to know the deepest fears, hopes, desires and fantasies of the subject, and to create a new reality from them.

To train someone is to involve a regime of techniques learned from various disciplines - military training, psychotherapies, martial arts, religions, sexual practice etc. But you don't break someone by training them. Training helps take you closer, but there is a different quality to possessing someone - you occupy their soul, and they must love you.

Perhaps all training follows identifiably similar practices, but each and every breakage is unique?

These are my thoughts at the moment anyway, but one is always learning. Please don't bother with the usual invective if you feel breaking is inappropriate for yourself, I am hoping to encourage a serious discussion and to benefit from the experience and knowledge of others. Memo privately if you prefer, but please do share if you can.

Dx

My initial thoughts are that I don't want to "break" someone. That to me has a very negative connotation. It implies that in order to possess someone's soul you have to break them. Frankly I want someone who wants to give me their soul. Now, I may need to prove that I am worthy of being given that.. But to me I would rather have a willing subject than one broken by force of whatever kind.

Now, strong and progressive training that takes someone, expands their submission and depth of feelings, yes... Definitely into that...

Could it be that the answer to this question is defined by the end result that you want?

All IMO...

Let's all play nicely people.. Just remember.. This is meant to be fun!
"The art of being a gentleman is knowing when not to be..."

Personally, I think that training is more about working with the raw material you have. It isn't just about teaching techniques to a submissive, it's about moulding them and creating something beautiful.

With regard to breaking, however, it seems to be more about pushing down barriers and starting from scratch. If you want to create a slave, I suppose they have to be broken. But I find it hard to see how they would ever be able to truly love you unless you released them from their enslavement. It's like if you keep a dog in a cage, you don't know if it truly wants to be there unless you open the door and it decides to stay.

I suppose for me, submission is about making, about protecting and nurturing the gift of submission, trusting the submissive to be who they are rather than trying to turn them into something different.

If people want to use it - then fine.

*UPDATE* Model(s) for "how to" bondage photographs (and other bondage photographs) have now been found. Thank you to all who showed interest.

Please excuse crap spelling cause i,m rubbish

Seconded

Of course, not everyone wants to go there. I'd be very interested in hearing from others who also desire this, or who have experienced it.

http://www.breakinginhorses.com/

If you want the harsher definitions you could consider a sub/slave who resorts to a safe word as broken. A sub who loses all her self will as broken or even a sub/slave who passes out as broken.

In the opposite direction it can mean a sub has commited to a relationship. A sub could have handed over various amounts of control to her dom/domme.

It can mean something different to all of us.

Just another example why communication needs to be precise when talking about a subject. The wrong idea can be given for better or the worse if all is not explained fully.

The pleasure, I fear, will be all mine.
You cant help those that refuse to listen.

Sincere question. How is this even possible when you love someone? Cause, to me, it seems that in breaking this person, you destroy exactly that, which made you fall in love with/were interested in, in the first place.

Consequently, I really fail to understand the need to "remake" somemone as well. Also, in cases like these, I never seem to get an answer on the question, what would happen if you (in all your domliness and presumably with the best interests of the "broken" person in mind) are unable to "remake" this person afterwards...

I'm really interested in your POV here.

"Class is the impartial, consistent display of emotional integrity."

You do have to train before you can break.

:D

This ^^^^^^^^ I was thinking almost precisely the same thing... Really intrigued about the same points.

Let's all play nicely people.. Just remember.. This is meant to be fun!
"The art of being a gentleman is knowing when not to be..."