Your ideas on a "Trained Sub"

[Tyr51]

I was recently in a relationship, and while most of you would consider my training to be very soft and fairly minimal, I would say that it really went as fast as it could reasonably go. I'm not a painslut, I'm not into extremes. I just really wanted to explore the power exchange dynamic that goes along with D/s (which I find facinating and very exciting), and in the process started to have some boundries explored.

Over the course of some time, I would say that measurable modfication in my behavior did come about. In some places, it was fairly significant. In this respect, one could claim I was "trained." I was.

But it makes me wonder what this really means for me. Looking outside in, there seems to be a big difference in the community between subs who are "trained" vs "untrained." But to be honest, I was trained for Him. If down the road I were to ever look into a similar relationship, and if I were asked if I had been trained by a previous Dom, I'd feel it wouldn't be giving the right impression to say I had been. I had boundries broken down with Him. I learned to do things that pleased Him. That doesn't mean those boundries have been broken down for everyone. I fully believe that things would have to start from square one.

I suppose I have a few questions.

Among subs, is my viewpoint or experience unique? Or are there others of you out there who feel that, like in other relationships, you start at the begining with each one? Are there subs out there who feel once they've passed a boundry with with dominant that that boundry is passed forever?

Among Doms, what is your general view on this? Why do you ask this question of subs? What do you hope to learn from them in knowing one way or another? Are your expectations different for someone who has had one or two D/s relationships vs. none at all? Do you view those who go to dungeons as casual players differently from those who persue longer term 1x1 relations?

This all may seem like D/s 101, and if it does, I'm sorry.
It's just been on my mind today, and I'd love to read your thoughts on it.

Thank you for your time!

 

[myinnerslut]

i was in an almost three year relationship, two and a half of which was D/s. shortly after ending that relationship, i entered a new D/s relationship, that after a few weeks transitioned into M/s. a lot of what i learned in the first relationship wasnt how to work with him, but how i was. that stuff carried over. then there was the stuff that had a meaning in relationship 1, and didnt in my current relationship.

an example of this is the word "phone". in relationship one, when i heard the word "phone" as the only word in the sentence it was a command to get on the phone and call him. the first time Master said "phone", i dashed for my cell phone ad called him. once i got his voicemail i realized he meant he was on the phone and would be right back. little things like that happen every one in a while with decreasing frequency.

 

[intothewoods]

I don't really get the concept of training. Unless there is one vision of a trained submissive, what does it mean? There seem to be so many online Doms claiming an interest in "training" or "mentoring," without really giving a hoot about either. So I admit, when I hear the word training I wince.

 

[Netzach]

To me, it's a person whose head is "on right" - they have the notion that its about ME down as a reflex - they're past the sub frenzy stage and the 'fulfill my fetishes" stage and really ready to serve my needs and my desires.

Some people just *are* that way, some people are trained to be that way and some people have already been trained to be that way in their fairly distant youth by someone else, leaving me to enjoy the fruits of experience.

 

[Netzach]

And in this regard, the best trainer is yourself.

Other teachers reveal themselves too, maybe, as they're needed. Rarely do they come along asking if you want their glorious training.

 

[Homburg]

Some excellent posts already.

I'm not up on the "trained sub" thing. The phrase elicits visions of putting a cookie on her upturned nose and making her wait to eat it until I give the command. While that might be fun for humiliation play, I want a human submissive, not a two-legged inefficient dog.

Training, for me, is a soft process, not in the sense that I am soft, but in the sense that I don't have some long codified set of expectations. I am no Phineas Fogg, and I don't really understand those who are that way.

The core experience of "training" is learning me, and how I operate. Then she figures out how to best insert herself into the process to please me. As MIS mentions above, the only lessons that have carried over from her previous relationship were ones dealing specifically with her own reactions. They have nothing to do with the commands or expectations of her previous boyfriend. And, as she mentions, those responses that remain are basically useless, and, in some cases, detrimental. You will likely find that you will be starting over again with your next dominant, as their expectations and needs will be different.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

In my book, a "trained" submissive is one who has learned how to properly host at parties - seat guests, see to their drinks, lighting cigarettes, unobtrusively mingling and introducing people and providing social lubricant in those events. A "trained" submissive knows my wants and needs, how I want my eggs or steak cooked, how I want my laundry folded and put away, doesn't have to ask if I need my drink refilled. A "trained" submissive moves quietly and with grace, she knows how to behave appropriately in any situation, she doesn't need me to hold her hand and guide her she already know what I would want her to do in most circumstances.

A trained submissive is one I do not have to micro manage. And she is a treasure beyond measure.

 

[Tyr51]

I really want to thank everyone of you for your thoughtful and personal responses so far. I'm certainly reading with interest, and I appreciate the discussion.

 

[saphicsub]

My idea of being a trained sub would be like having a drivers license. It enables you to use the road network safely and knowlegably.

After that, driving different types of vehicle would be an individual learning process to aquaint with each individual vehicles particular driving style and method.

I can only imagain that once my barriers are broken down, ......inhibitions........i will reach a comfort level with that particular M/s but its all done on a basis of trust and it doesnt follow that I would pick up and carry on from the same place with someone new.
It would be a whole new trust building process to reduce my inhibitions over again.

Geoff, .......I love the "Treasure beyond measure" quote.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Training in most (not all) cases is a term used to describe more accurately getting to know each other and what is expected from both or all involved. It does not usually carry over successfully into another relationship as everyone is an individual with unique needs and wants. Even EG's description does not mean that his idea of a treasure due to their training would suit another Dominant...they could quite as easily find the trained submissive irritating, presumptuous, totally out of touch with what they require. Doesn't make it right or wrong, just shows there are as many possible styles of training one to suit their needs as there are Dominants and submissives.

As to the boundaries crossed question, once again I think it depends on who you are with. What you may have been willing to do out of trust or desire for a partner you had been with for 5 years, you most likely will not be willing to do for a brand spanking new partner on the first date, especially if it was something which required a lot of trust. You may find it easier to cross that line again due to the knowledge gained, finding how you previously managed to get your head around the said limit, but it is not a given it will be on offer for anyone and everyone you meet with a view to forming a relationship.

Catalina

 

[Desdemona]

It's all about the dominant

Among subs, is my viewpoint or experience unique? Or are there others of you out there who feel that, like in other relationships, you start at the begining with each one? Are there subs out there who feel once they've passed a boundry with with dominant that that boundry is passed forever?

I've been in a couple of long term D/s relationships. Boundaries change over time and they may vary with each relationship. Boundaries can expand or contract. You can learn to tolerate or enjoy more or less intense sensations with gradual exposure.

This whole notion of training, in my own experience, is more about what you read in fiction vs real life. We don't really live on Gor or in the setting of a Marketplace novel. It may be fun to roleplay some of that, but making it happen as part of your every day experience would be difficult at best. The dominants I've had, wanted specific types of behaviors from me and it was easy to figure out how to meet those expectations because I wanted to do so and because they were clear about what they wanted. I'm not a mind reader.

If your purpose and desire is to please the dominant and you actively set out to learn how to please an individual dominant, I guess you could call that training. The desires and expectations of dominants are as individual as fingerprints. Some will want to make this process formal, others just want it to evolve naturally and to be a part of who you are. "Training" or learning to meet expectations/desires looks different in every single relationship.

 

[Pure]

the idea of "training" a sub or slave reminds me of the old concept of "training a good wife," embodied in lots of traditional religious literature.

this concept suggests *transferability*; so a woman who was formerly married to A, can now say to prospective husband B, "I was trained." and B can say, "Since you're already trained, I will have less to teach you; just a few specifics about me and this house."

it seems to me that homburg and desdemona are correct about NON transferability. catalina, similarly.

if we think of non human pets, "trained" does carry some weight. "This dog is house trained." Fine, I don't have to teach it NOT to shit in the house.

Consider, however, "This dog is trained to heel." Some owners might find this convenient: the dog will walk with his nose and head just ahead of your legs. one can see the assumption: there is some common "standard" type of owner who wants the dog just there beside, and his head just ahead.

applying to the present case: where there are cookie cutter doms/dommes/owners, there may be cookie cutter "trained" subs who are quite satisfactory. there is no rule that says a dom or domme has to be an individual; indeed maybe they went to dom/me school and learned the standard behaviors expected.



Homburg I'm not up on the "trained sub" thing. The phrase elicits visions of putting a cookie on her upturned nose and making her wait to eat it until I give the command. While that might be fun for humiliation play, I want a human submissive, not a two-legged inefficient dog.

Training, for me, is a soft process, not in the sense that I am soft, but in the sense that I don't have some long codified set of expectations. I am no Phineas Fogg, and I don't really understand those who are that way.

The core experience of "training" is learning me, and how I operate. Then she figures out how to best insert herself into the process to please me. As MIS mentions above, the only lessons that have carried over from her previous relationship were ones dealing specifically with her own reactions. They have nothing to do with the commands or expectations of her previous boyfriend. And, as she mentions, those responses that remain are basically useless, and, in some cases, detrimental. You will likely find that you will be starting over again with your next dominant, as their expectations and needs will be different.


Desde: //This whole notion of training, in my own experience, is more about what you read in fiction vs real life. We don't really live on Gor or in the setting of a Marketplace novel. It may be fun to roleplay some of that, but making it happen as part of your every day experience would be difficult at best. The dominants I've had, wanted specific types of behaviors from me and it was easy to figure out how to meet those expectations because I wanted to do so and because they were clear about what they wanted. I'm not a mind reader.

If your purpose and desire is to please the dominant and you actively set out to learn how to please an individual dominant, I guess you could call that training. The desires and expectations of dominants are as individual as fingerprints. Some will want to make this process formal, others just want it to evolve naturally and to be a part of who you are. "Training" or learning to meet expectations/desires looks different in every single relationship.//

 

[WriterDom]

Among Doms, what is your general view on this? Why do you ask this question of subs? What do you hope to learn from them in knowing one way or another? Are your expectations different for someone who has had one or two D/s relationships vs. none at all? Do you view those who go to dungeons as casual players differently from those who persue longer term 1x1 relations?
!

I don't recall ever asking if someone was trained. I would ask about your experience. It takes a lot more patience to work with a first edition. Failure with her is to be expected. While failure with you might mean we aren't right for each other.

 

[greeneyed_Lady]

IMO training is not something that carries over from one relationship to another. Each partner is new to the other, and there is a learning process that happens when you are first together. There are some skills, such as what EG mentioned, that can be transferable. I kind of equate it to filing... every office job I've ever had has had filing. While the concept doesn't change, the way it's done is slightly different from office to office. The last two subs I've been involved with have learned how to make my chai the way I like. Will that skill be helpful in their next relationship? Probably not, unless their next Domme like her chai like I like mine. The current boy is learning some more personal grooming skills, this is still an experiment for both of us as we haven't been able to determine the best method for doing some of it, neither his fault (failure to learn) nor mine (failure to teach). Will his next dominant require this of him? Don't know, don't care. It's what will please me in the here and know that concerns me.

Like Homburg said, some things are detrimental.

I make few demands of my play partners, I have few expectations of them. Perhaps this will change the longer that I am with them, the more I learn, the more I want, the more I experience.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I also find myself wondering how effective training could be if it was done with the understanding the relationship was not going to last. Personally I think I would find it debilitating in that it would seriously impose on my will to succeed. Why would I want to put 150% into learning how to serve someone who might move on next week or next month? Seems I would be better putting that energy into a relationship which meant something a bit more substantial than here today, gone tomorrow. Good luck to those who are still in a place where it doesn't feel like they are wasting precious time.

Catalina

 

[seekingsusie]

I guess the teacher in me is going to quibble over the words "training" and "education."

I learn about myself as I submit to another -- I learn how deeply the need to please, to submit, is ingrained in me and that learning -- education -- carries over to whomever I submit to. I also learn more intimately how to look for what the Domme desires or needs -- that, too, carries over.

I acquaint myself, or am acquainted through instruction, punishment, or reward, with the particular wishes of a Domme -- that's training.

So ... the question really is ... what is an educated sub, not a trained sub.

 

[Pure]

seeking I learn about myself as I submit to another -- I learn how deeply the need to please, to submit, is ingrained in me and that learning -- education -- carries over to whomever I submit to. I also learn more intimately how to look for what the Domme desires or needs -- that, too, carries over.

pure: if that's the carryoever, it seems minimal, ie. 'how deep is my need to please' and "how to look for that the domme desires." let's see. the answers respectively are-- very deep indeed; and 'ask her what she desires.' in other words, if "education" according to you, transfers, this seems like a rather small claim.

it's unclear whether anything that transfers, according to you, has to do, directly ,with obedience and submission, rather key issues.

"self knowledge" is a sometime thing: often has few correlations with behavior. a cantakerous sub becomes a 'cantankerous sub with self knowledge.'. for the other's pov, what's the gain?

===
seeking in full: guess the teacher in me is going to quibble over the words "training" and "education."

I learn about myself as I submit to another -- I learn how deeply the need to please, to submit, is ingrained in me and that learning -- education -- carries over to whomever I submit to. I also learn more intimately how to look for what the Domme desires or needs -- that, too, carries over.

I acquaint myself, or am acquainted through instruction, punishment, or reward, with the particular wishes of a Domme -- that's training.

So ... the question really is ... what is an educated sub, not a trained sub.

 

[Primalex]

Training - Tailoring a person to the own expectations.

You can compare it to a dog if you like. If you get a trained dog, you know it has learned to do some tricks. It doesn't mean it's the perfect dog for you, it doesn't even mean it has learned the things that are important for you (maybe you love to bicycle but the dog was not trained to run next to a bicycle). The trained dog does have the benefit though that you f.e. know it's housebroken and you know that the dog was able to listen to commands while an untrained dog might be everything, from a cute puppy to a Hooch.

 

[Desdemona]

woof

woof woof I loved that movie. Haven't thought of it in years. Hijack over.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

In my book, a "trained" submissive is one who has learned how to properly host at parties - seat guests, see to their drinks, lighting cigarettes, unobtrusively mingling and introducing people and providing social lubricant in those events. A "trained" submissive knows my wants and needs, how I want my eggs or steak cooked, how I want my laundry folded and put away, doesn't have to ask if I need my drink refilled. A "trained" submissive moves quietly and with grace, she knows how to behave appropriately in any situation, she doesn't need me to hold her hand and guide her she already know what I would want her to do in most circumstances.

A trained submissive is one I do not have to micro manage. And she is a treasure beyond measure.

This is very much how it is with Master and I. I am not learning slavery so much as taking an intensive course in him. It's about learning his desires and preferences and becoming confident at pre-empting most of his daily needs.

The sexual side of our relationship I find easy. I do exactly as I'm told and I offer an opinion or preference if asked to do so. My limits are set by him and I simply obey 99% of the time. On rare occasions, when I'm confident he's in the mood, I might instigate sexual play because I know that it really turns him on to have me spontaneously initiate something or lace myself into a corset and take it upon myself to do some footstool duty before begging for cock on my knees.

 

[MasterOniKuma]

A trained sub. LOL Well there are of course as many have said. The hosting and attending and propers of ettiquet and protocal when in public and in private. And there are several set rules when dealing with "Old Guard" "Old School" "Gorean" "Leathermen" and such. And these can be learned and often remain constant everywhere. But often the sub does have to learn all new sets of rules when submitting to a new Dom. While most are inherently the same, it is the small details of each that is what the sub must learn and relearn eachtime. And these are all according to the again the needs and desires of the Dom in the relationship.

 

[Netzach]

I was raised as a baby top partially by Leathermen and none of them can agree on any of it either.

There never was a monolithic culture.

 

[MasterOniKuma]

I was raised as a baby top partially by Leathermen and none of them can agree on any of it either.

There never was a monolithic culture.

Diversity is the spice of life. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

 

[Pure]

note to velvet

velvetThis is very much how it is with Master and I. I am not learning slavery so much as taking an intensive course in him. It's about learning his desires and preferences and becoming confident at pre-empting most of his daily needs.

The sexual side of our relationship I find easy. I do exactly as I'm told and I offer an opinion or preference if asked to do so. My limits are set by him and I simply obey 99% of the time.
----

pure: this is well stated and agrees with my experiences as a pet. as to sexual events and 'doing as told,' again, yes. as before, i'd emphasize that this is an individually tailored skill. it's not a case of slave x is trained to 'do as s/he is told,' that being transferable (do what the next master says).

consider this analogy: one is playing piano to accompany a certain singer. one learns *to fit that particular singer's wishes and style.* that, per se, does NOT transfer, though of course, with another singer, the accompanist is aware of the necessity to adapt to this other person's wishes and style.

 

[Primalex]

You know, the quote feature is there for a reason. Use it.