"I want to be trained"

[Eraser]

Call me lazy.. but not going to quote each person


lucy: nothing ever humble about my opinions and nothing controversial about your. When I speak of cumming on command I am referring to single word near instant orgasms. Not orgasm control on a broader scope.

I also agree with you completely as to what is actually being said as opposed to the words used that was my point

as for the only training worth anything being the last and that being the only true form of Ds. On this point we totally disagree. How can a submissive even understand what she wants or enjoy's without experience? Did you marry the first guy you dated? Probably not, dating is relationship training its how you learn what you want in a mate. Ds training is learning what you want in a Dom.

On the last point again we disagree. There is no one way to Ds or BDSM so there can be NO true way. Also Ds is one on one even in a group the submission is between the Dominant and the submissive and she is submissive to his desires not a blanket submissive to any person that tells them what to do unless her Dominant deems it so. If he does then its still one on one in she still following command to do as other says. By your reference there could be no chain of command the military or middle managers int he corporate world etc etc.


Wontworry: well I'm glad you enjoy it, I've trained it in girls in the past and find the training wonderful but the final result boring. To each there own and glad you enjoy the control and headspace it gives you. More power to ya


Lia: yes, its true. I've trained it in 4 girls in the last 9 years with different stimulant response systems. As Wontworry said, the power of it is intoxicating, but in my experiences I find that fades quickly in time for both the sub and the Dom.


to all: Feel free to ask questions. Feel even more free to argue and disagree with me. My opinions and experiences are my own I share them simply to benefit others. Doesn't mean your wrong or I am wrong if we disagree.

[slavelucy]

Call me lazy..

Well, whatever does it for ya...lazy...

lucy: nothing ever humble about my opinions

Well, no offense, but maybe there should be something humble about them, because, the way the originally quoted line reads, one could be forgiven for thinking that you're making broad, sweeping statements for everyone...you think it's a real pain in the butt...you think it's boring...but that wasn't how you presented it, is all i'm saying.

When I speak of cumming on command I am referring to single word near instant orgasms. Not orgasm control on a broader scope.

i figured.

Right, on with the rest of the business...

Did you marry the first guy you dated?

No, but i didn't 'practice' marriage either! And that's my point, i don't believe you can be trained to be with someone, in any relationship, be it Ds or vanilla, i think you just get on and do it...and it part of that is training and learning, then fine. In fact, surely this very conversation demonstrates this. Me and you, though both great folks (heh!), don't share views on Ds...would it be feasible that i be trained by you? Of course not, that would be silly. In fact, you're right when you say there is no one way to do Ds...therefore, based on this lack of over-arching principles, logic does not follow that one can be trained in the stark way you propose.

As for my 'third' point, i think that was more chksng19's point, but either way, i didn't say or certainly didn't mean there was 'one way to do Ds'..in fact, i said or meant precisely the opposite, i said that it is based ON the very fact that there is no one way of doing it, that Ds works best between two given people and that is the only person to whom the submissive should answer to....this diversity IS the pure form. In fact, it is completely illogical, to me, to think any other...to be trained by someone else does not make them your dominant; a trainer, maybe, but not dominant.

sl

[Curtis]

No, but i didn't 'practice' marriage either! (snip)
...to be trained by someone else does not make them your dominant; a trainer, maybe, but not dominant.

I very much admire that last phrase, but I'd add the word 'necessarily' between 'not' and 'make'. Much of the BDSM fiction that I read off-line is based on that very concept (ie. someone who trains subs for others without becoming their Dom themself), so I relate to this as a logical and desirable phenomenon.

As for the first statement above, here in the U.S. we have an institution that sociologists are coming to call the 'starter' marriage, wherein one or both of the participants goes into it expecting it to be more of a learning experience than a 'forever' thing, hoping that they'll be able to get it right the second time. As I noted in an e-mail, this institution is a pretty thorough-going failure, since second marriages are MUCH more likely to fail than first ones are.

[Alaric's pet]

This has been an interesting thread to read and I appreciate the chance to think deeper on this subject. If I may, I'd like to respond to one of the first lines from Eraser:

What is being trained? What does it mean to be trained?

I find myself drawn to this idea although I haven't really expressed it to Alaric in those words. (or anyone else for that matter....it does sound pretty silly afterall) For me, "training" is almost a desire to be "forced" over the line from fantasizing and into reality. I know the things that I'd like to try....the things that make me crazy with desire when I read about them here in the forum....but I find it difficult at times to reconcile those feelings with the other roles I have to play. In my mind, a trainer would not let me make excuses or hide from what I physically desire. He would force me to confront (and embrace!) my inner fuck-slut. :exit:

[Eraser]

Well, whatever does it for ya...lazy...

oh you know me better then that! its suppose to be lazy wanker sheesh...

Well, no offense, but maybe there should be something humble about them, because, the way the originally quoted line reads, one could be forgiven for thinking that you're making broad, sweeping statements for everyone...you think it's a real pain in the butt...you think it's boring...but that wasn't how you presented it, is all i'm saying.

well as far as I am concerned it my post on my own initiated thread. The only one I ever speak for are my own opinions. I don't hold any broad reaching position like moderator or the like to make a sweeping statment. So yes the thoughts and opinions here are my own. I guess I'm just not overly politically correct in making sure I specify that statements I make are my own. Those that normally offended by statements made by someone to be assumed to a larger scale are... wait that would be a broad statement... never mind

No, but i didn't 'practice' marriage either!

no but you did learn from dating how to pick the partner that most suited your liking.

therefore, based on this lack of over-arching principles, logic does not follow that one can be trained in the stark way you propose.

well if your referring to 'one' as yourself. I agree we are not compatible at all on that front. But if you using in a royal sense, then again we disagree. I've trained more then my fair share of girls. I also have taken on girls for short periods of time to train specific task for other owners that did not have the specific skill to train them in a particular manner or tool or method. But there there are many that have benefited greatly from training under me.

to be trained by someone else does not make them your dominant; a trainer, maybe, but not dominant.

doesn't effect my dominance over them it does effect if I am THEIR Dom or not correct?
I also stated in the start of my post "a self proclaimed formal trainer" and when I train someone I am refereed to as such NEVER as Master.




The entire point of my post was dual purpose. If your a submissive and you say/ask to be trained please understand what you are asking for. If your Dom and you hear these words, understand the possibilities of what a person is asking for, in addition don't go running around looking at a thousand website for the "correct" or "true" or "one" training method. There isn't one, you have to develop your own based on what you want. Training without a goal is pointless. Then its not training. then its playing.

[slavelucy]

oh you know me better then that! its suppose to be lazy wanker sheesh...

LOL! Ohhhh, yeah, sorry, that's quite remiss of me....although, i thought you preferred..naughty wanker...?*grins*

well as far as I am concerned it my post on my own initiated thread. The only one I ever speak for are my own opinions. I don't hold any broad reaching position like moderator or the like to make a sweeping statment. So yes the thoughts and opinions here are my own. I guess I'm just not overly politically correct in making sure I specify that statements I make are my own.

At the risk of flogging a dead horse (i can't be arsed finding the dead horse icon!)....i only meant the one line in which you said one particular thing was a royal pain in the butt and was boring...it wasn't from a mod POV that it didn't sit easily with me, but from a...*thinks*..person POV.

no but you did learn from dating how to pick the partner that most suited your liking.

*chuckles inwardly* (not at you, Eraser)...well, sure i did, but i was merely implying that the analogy was a weak one, because in a Ds relationship, the training kinda IS a big part of the relationship and i don't think the two are all that comparable. If you were talking about conversing with other dominants, getting to know more about the lifestyle etc, then i would whole heartedly agree that it's only through knowing other dominants and/or submissive that one comes to realise how individual a Ds relationship is...but you wern't talking about merely conversing with other people, you were talking specifically about training.

well if your referring to 'one' as yourself. I agree we are not compatible at all on that front. But if you using in a royal sense, then again we disagree.

LOL! i was using 'one' as i always use it on these forums, in an effort not to personalize, perhaps i'm being overly English..tut tut, sheesh, i'll be calling people a wanker left, right and centre in a minute! Somebody STOP me!! Ahem, anyway, yes, on this point we do totally disagree and there is no reconciling that. i still believe that it is the diversity of Ds that dictates that 'cold' or 'uninvolved' training (particularly in the example you give, when training submissives in a skill for another dominant) inherantly means that you're not having a Ds relationship with them, you're training them.

doesn't effect my dominance over them it does effect if I am THEIR Dom or not correct?

If i have understood your question correctly, then yes, correct, which is pretty much what i said...and this is possibly the crux of where we differ...the one thing i dislike and which hugely turns me off (in the broadest sense) about BDSM, is the notion that i should submit to anyone other than my own Dom...and hence, if someone was not my Dom, i could not and indeed would not be 'doing' Ds with them.

The entire point of my post was dual purpose. If your a submissive and you say/ask to be trained please understand what you are asking for. If your Dom and you hear these words, understand the possibilities of what a person is asking for, in addition don't go running around looking at a thousand website for the "correct" or "true" or "one" training method.

Oh, on this point we agree, in fact, on what not to do, i think we very much agree, on the individuality of Ds, we also agree....but on the consequences of that individuality, we remain divided.

sl

[Eraser]

i was merely implying that the analogy was a weak one

actually the analogy is a fundemental of adolecent psychology.

because in a Ds relationship, the training kinda IS a big part of the relationship and i don't think the two are all that comparable.

yes training is a big part of the relationship. But there are smaller portions of a D\s relationship that don't need to be experianced with the "one"

If you were talking about conversing with other dominants, getting to know more about the lifestyle etc, then i would whole heartedly agree that it's only through knowing other dominants and/or submissive that one comes to realise how individual a Ds relationship is...but you wern't talking about merely conversing with other people, you were talking specifically about training.

I think the big differance here is you are monogomous and I am polyamorus. I do agree with you that just because a sub is a sub she should be listening to ever guy that comes along. I do thing in a D\s social setting respect should be kept, as you are a representation of your owner. If you are rude etc then
that reflects negativly on your owner. Now if your owner dislikes the person I say be as much of a bitch as you want.

inherantly means that you're not having a Ds relationship with them, you're training them.

this is splitting hairs to me. I'm not having a D\s relationship in the Master slave they are owned by me sense your correct.

where we differ...the one thing i dislike and which hugely turns me off (in the broadest sense) about BDSM, is the notion that i should submit to anyone other than my own Dom...

additionally I have no problem with one of my girls scene with another Dom but though he may be the physicality behind the actions, her submission is still to me and my desires. I directed her to do so hence that is why. This entire concept of doing as any Dom says is an IRCism or online thing. Even if you look back to Old guard. You pay respect but you do not follow the commands of another Master unless your own Master has instructed you to do so.

I really don't think were that far off base of each other, as I do view the trainer/charge relationship different then I view the Master/slave relationship. But I Do think many new people learn some good things from trainers that prepare them for better relationships.

[slavelucy]

actually the analogy is a fundemental of adolecent psychology.

Um..i wasn't referring to adolescent psychology, i was referring to the analogy as you used it, which was in specific relation to Ds. i am aware of the concept of adolescent socialization, i just don't think the analogy is wholly appropriate in adult Ds relationships.

yes training is a big part of the relationship. But there are smaller portions of a D\s relationship that don't need to be experianced with the "one"

But..wasn't it the training and not the 'smaller parts' that you were referring to?

I think the big differance here is you are monogomous

*smiles inwardly* You're not wholly correct in that assumption, but that's not important and i take your point. i wouldn't want to be trained by someone else and then passed back to my Dom, no. Ds, for me, is a relationship, not school.

I do agree with you that just because a sub is a sub she should be listening to ever guy that comes along. I do thing in a D\s social setting respect should be kept, as you are a representation of your owner. If you are rude etc then that reflects negativly on your owner.

*raises an eyebrow* Eraser, if i am inappropriately rude or offensive to someone then it reflects badly on me, lucy. It would only reflect badly on my dominant insofar as he had failed to actively encourage me both to express myself politely and the positives of doing so. Granted, at a BDSM event i would be more likely to keep my mouth shut on certain issues for a few hours, but if anyone (dominant, submissive, whoever) asked my opinion on something, i would happily respectfully give it, just as i would here.

I really don't think were that far off base of each other, as I do view the trainer/charge relationship different then I view the Master/slave relationship. But I Do think many new people learn some good things from trainers that prepare them for better relationships.

...and i don't. i think that people learn from Ds experiences with other people, just like they do with vanilla ones, in fact, just like they do with life, in general, and it is natural that every single relationship, conversation, encounter would change them slightly...but trained for another person? No. This is probably because my own dominant would be highly unlikely to want me to be trained by someone else, the reason for which is essentially two-pronged: Firstly, it's quite likely that the training wouldn't be to his taste and he'd end up having to do it all over again anyway, and secondly, well..he'd rather do it himself, that is the point in our being involved, afterall.

i agree, however, that the one point we are agreed on is that training does not equate to a Master/slave relationship, as i said before, it's only what comes after that on which we remain in disagreement.

sl

[Lord Douche]

Okay, this thread is pretty big and fat, so I'll be brief.

Firstly, I believe that being trained as a sub is not the same as being taught to do woodwork, or to learn proper english. I believe that Ds is part of a relationship, and to treat it the way you would a TAFE course is to invite trouble.
This matter of training someone elses sub just doesn't fit with me... why would you base a relationship on Ds, and then outsource your subs training? You pay someone to teach you how to use a computer, not to learn submission. This seems to be totally illogical, because whilst your sub will be learning, you as the dominant will learn nothing, all alone at home. Should a Ds relationship not be about mutual learning? Should you not be practicing Ds together, rather than apart? Why bother with a relationship at all, if you're not?!

And more to answer the original post, I believe that being "trained" as a submissive should be something that develops as part of a relationship. If people are hunting for a lifestyle involving Ds, or to understand what submission entails, then I don't believe that being trained into what one person considers to be a submissive (be that a doormat or a firey wench secretly craving a spanking) is the best way to go. Rather, they should learn through forging a relationship with someone, and one that is personal, instead of simply "business".
LD