Does Control mean 100%?

[Ebonyfire]

After reading many of the posts that address this subject, I decided to start a thread on this topic of 100% control.

I have read that many Dom/mes say they do not want to have a 24/7 bacause they do not want to be in control 100%.

But is that what 24/7 means, really?

I happen to believe that it DOES NOT mean that the dominant is in control 100% of the time. In fact, if the dominant has planned and chosen correctly he or she has a submissive who has the capability of picking of the slack at any given time.

Dom/mes get sick, Dom/mes get tired. Hopefully the Dom/me has chosen a submissive who has skills and talents that can be utilized to make the life easier for both parties.

What does this mean? It means that the dominant gives direction (a form of control) so that when he or she cannot or does not feel like being in control, he or she can delegate tasks to the submissive. That is quite a another different story.

If the dominant is proactive, he or she has already delegated tasks to the submissive when it is found that the aub has the superior skills in that area.

Any other viewpoints?

Ebony

 

[Ebonyfire]

I use quotes from David Stein's "What Slaves (yes you can use sub too) Need", and this particular quote is very apt to this subject.

When Masters think of a slave’s service purely in terms of having him at Their beck and call to fulfill any whim or transient desire, They trivialize the slave’s slavery and undermine his ability to continue that way of life. On the contrary: a case could be made that the main reason Masters even exist is to provide slaves with an opportunity to serve to the best of their abilities! Whether you accept that view or not, a Master who neglects or wastes a slave’s talents is worse than a fool; it is a form of abuse as serious as physical harm or neglect.

I totally agree with his statement that a case could be made that the main reason Masters even exist is to provide slaves with an opportunity to serve to the best of their abilities!


So, knowing this, t could be said it is a deriliction of duty for a Dom/me to ignore a slave/subs special skills. Teaching a slave self-control, and giving him or her tasks that allow them to be useful, makes your life easier, and alleviates the need to 100% control (policing).

Eb

 

[Daddyslilpet]

Excellent topic Ebony.

What Master and I have is D/s 24/7 PE. Note I didn't say TPE. With our relationship we have discovered that TPE just isn't going to work right now. Him having 100% of the control just would not be doable for us with his work schedules and such.

He expects me to be able to handle the day to day running of the household......pay bills, take care of the kids, make sure the house is clean, laundry done, errands ran, meals prepared....etc. He has told me he has no desire to have to "control" every part of my day, nor does he have the time and energy for it.

This works for us, and I suppose that's all that matters.

~smile~
dixi

 

[Ebonyfire]

Excellent topic Ebony.

What Master and I have is D/s 24/7 PE. Note I didn't say TPE. With our relationship we have discovered that TPE just isn't going to work right now. Him having 100% of the control just would not be doable for us with his work schedules and such.

He expects me to be able to handle the day to day running of the household......pay bills, take care of the kids, make sure the house is clean, laundry done, errands ran, meals prepared....etc. He has told me he has no desire to have to "control" every part of my day, nor does he have the time and energy for it.

This works for us, and I suppose that's all that matters.

~smile~
dixi

Thanks dixi.

That is exactly my point. No one can control !00% and foster the inner growth of a submissive. If the sub has a brain (and they all do) why not use it to the greater good of the relationship?


Eb

 

[Desdemona]

Thanks dixi.

That is exactly my point. No one can control !00% and foster the inner growth of a submissive. If the sub has a brain (and they all do) why not use it to the greater good of the relationship?


Eb

Hey Eb, no fair being logical and using common sense.

 

[A Desert Rose]

I have nothing to add except that I think if I were in a live-in relationship with a Dom, it would be very much like Dixi described.

 

[Richard49]

What does this mean? It means that the dominant gives direction (a form of control) so that when he or she cannot or does not feel like being in control, he or she can delegate tasks to the submissive. That is quite a another different story.

If the dominant is proactive, he or she has already delegated tasks to the submissive when it is found that the aub has the superior skills in that area.

Any other viewpoints?

Ebony

I think my view is the same as yours but worded different.

In a "committed" relationship which may or may not be a living together 24/7 .... I expect the submissive to ask herself ... what would Richard want me to do in this situation .... if I do "X" would it embrass or disappoint Richard

 

[Ebonyfire]

Re: Re: Does Control mean 100%?

I think my view is the same as yours but worded different.

In a "committed" relationship which may or may not be a living together 24/7 .... I expect the submissive to ask herself ... what would Richard want me to do in this situation .... if I do "X" would it embrass or disappoint Richard

Ah, but we do differ, and here is how:

Using the example that you gave, and using my philosophy of D/s, I would not even concern myself with what my sub (male) was doing. He knows his parameters, and I would not want him to do what he thinks I would want him to do. I would want him to use his own knowledge and experience to take the right course of action in that situation. In other words, he would have autonomy.

Ebony

 

[A Desert Rose]

Re: Re: Does Control mean 100%?

I think my view is the same as yours but worded different.

In a "committed" relationship which may or may not be a living together 24/7 .... I expect the submissive to ask herself ... what would Richard want me to do in this situation .... if I do "X" would it embrass or disappoint Richard

WWRD? lmao -- even when you don't try, you crack me up.

 

[artful]

Re: Re: Re: Does Control mean 100%?

Ah, but we do differ, and here is how:

Using the example that you gave, and using my philosophy of D/s, I would not even concern myself with what my sub (male) was doing. He knows his parameters, and I would not want him to do what he thinks I would want him to do. I would want him to use his own knowledge and experience to take the right course of action in that situation. In other words, he would have autonomy.

Ebony

I agree with you Eb,...and as the autonomy is excercised, a Master/Mistress *may* decide to take control of another aspect of their slave's life, but *only* as a *choice*, and after necessary discussion with their slave.

(JMHO),...but it's mine,...and I own it.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Hey Eb, no fair being logical and using common sense.

It was an accident. My bad.

Eb

 

[NemoAlia]

Ebony and Richard -- what's different between Eb's "what's right" and Richard's "what Richard would do?"

 

[lark sparrow]

After reading many of the posts that address this subject, I decided to start a thread on this topic of 100% control.

I have read that many Dom/mes say they do not want to have a 24/7 bacause they do not want to be in control 100%.

But is that what 24/7 means, really?

I happen to believe that it DOES NOT mean that the dominant is in control 100% of the time. In fact, if the dominant has planned and chosen correctly he or she has a submissive who has the capability of picking of the slack at any given time.

Dom/mes get sick, Dom/mes get tired. Hopefully the Dom/me has chosen a submissive who has skills and talents that can be utilized to make the life easier for both parties.

What does this mean? It means that the dominant gives direction (a form of control) so that when he or she cannot or does not feel like being in control, he or she can delegate tasks to the submissive. That is quite a another different story.

If the dominant is proactive, he or she has already delegated tasks to the submissive when it is found that the aub has the superior skills in that area.

Any other viewpoints?

Ebony

Micro-management is not a goal in the relationship I am involved in either. I have a few basic 'do not cross this line' rules and an understanding of many of Her wishes and needs, that grows with time.

When in doubt I usually use my own judgement. When in serious doubt, I simply ask Her and add that to the base of knowledge for future reference.

I am always allowed to ask Her questions when needed, but there is a satisfaction in the mutual understanding that allows a free flowing exchange. She makes adjustments when wanted or needed, but micromanaging me would be tiring and loathesome to Her.

 

[Ishmael]

Really good posts here

I thought that I would add a historical perspective. That of real slaves and slavery. I'm going to use the Roman Empire as the model as I thing that that best fits the BDSM model.

In this respect, Richard was spot on.

Roman slaves weilded a great deal of power. They ran business's for their Masters and performed all sort of autonomous tasks. Vitually every household bookkeeper (and in the governement as well) in the Roman Empire was a slave. The more successful Masters identified early the individual talents of slaves and nutured these talents to the benefit of the Master and the slave both.

However, as Richard pointed out, this autonomy was tempered with the expectation that the slave act in the BEST interest of the Master at all times. Punishment for transgressions was not meted out arbitrarily. If the slave could prove to the Master that the transgression was an honest mistake and that the slave truly thought that the action taken was in the Masters best interest, a serious talking to would be all that was administered. After all, it was/is a mentoring process as well.

Serious Masters understood exactly how much power and trust they were putting in the hands of their slaves.

The typical day began with the slave meeting with and paying homage to the Master. It was at this time that any special instructions were passed along. In many cases, if the slave did not live under the Masters roof and many did not, the slave and Master would not see each other until the next morning. Those slaves that were set up in business settled their accounts with the bookkeeper (also a slave) and the bookkeeper would report any events out of the ordinary, good or bad, to the Master.

For the most part it was an orderly and ammicable system for all concerned. Many free men and women who were with talent but without means would sell themselves into slavery to a particulary well thought of Master.

Many slaves earned their freedom by performing extraordinarilly for their Masters. And even though freed, maintained a close and mutually beneficial realtionship with their former masters.

Based on Richards statements, which model closely my own expectations, it's easy to see how a model such as this has the abiltiy to free both parties to persue personal growth, while still maintaining the power relationship that is the foundation of this kind of relationship.

Or in other words, a wise Dom(es) will encourage the sub to develope their talents and provide the tools to do so. It is the sub's obligation to use those talents and tools in the best interest of their Dom(es). At least using the Roman model for the basis for the relationship.

Ishmael

<edited to add>

Of course in the event of a betrayal the Master held the absolute power of life or death over the slave. A Master could have the slave put to death without anymore than a cusrory statement and that was more for the maintaining of social status and not a requirement.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Re: Really good posts here

The typical day began with the slave meeting with and paying homage to the Master. It was at this time that any special instructions were passed along.
Ishmael

hehehe...... I love these 2 sentences. I really am not a bad subbie. I just have a sense of humor.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Ebony and Richard -- what's different between Eb's "what's right" and Richard's "what Richard would do?"

Eb's "what's right?" I was posting how I want MY slaves to behave. It is my style and it works for me. It is how I want things in my Queendom. Others may do that they please. I am assuming Richard was giving his opinion.

I just pointed out the difference(s) in our methods.

YMMV.

Eb

 

[artful]

Re: Really good posts here

I thought that I would add a historical perspective. That of real slaves and slavery. I'm going to use the Roman Empire as the model as I thing that that best fits the BDSM model.

In this respect, Richard was spot on.

Roman slaves weilded a great deal of power. They ran business's for their Masters and performed all sort of autonomous tasks. Vitually every household bookkeeper (and in the governement as well) in the Roman Empire was a slave. The more successful Masters identified early the individual talents of slaves and nutured these talents to the benefit of the Master and the slave both.

However, as Richard pointed out, this autonomy was tempered with the expectation that the slave act in the BEST interest of the Master at all times. Punishment for transgressions was not meted out arbitrarily. If the slave could prove to the Master that the transgression was an honest mistake and that the slave truly thought that the action taken was in the Masters best interest, a serious talking to would be all that was administered. After all, it was/is a mentoring process as well.

Serious Masters understood exactly how much power and trust they were putting in the hands of their slaves.

The typical day began with the slave meeting with and paying homage to the Master. It was at this time that any special instructions were passed along. In many cases, if the slave did not live under the Masters roof and many did not, the slave and Master would not see each other until the next morning. Those slaves that were set up in business settled their accounts with the bookkeeper (also a slave) and the bookkeeper would report any events out of the ordinary, good or bad, to the Master.

For the most part it was an orderly and ammicable system for all concerned. Many free men and women who were with talent but without means would sell themselves into slavery to a particulary well thought of Master.

Many slaves earned their freedom by performing extraordinarilly for their Masters. And even though freed, maintained a close and mutually beneficial realtionship with their former masters.

Based on Richards statements, which model closely my own expectations, it's easy to see how a model such as this has the abiltiy to free both parties to persue personal growth, while still maintaining the power relationship that is the foundation of this kind of relationship.

Or in other words, a wise Dom(es) will encourage the sub to develope their talents and provide the tools to do so. It is the sub's obligation to use those talents and tools in the best interest of their Dom(es). At least using the Roman model for the basis for the relationship.

Ishmael

A valid post Ish,...but that system is way outdated in a modern sense,...and as you stated, many efforts would be to IMPRESS upon a Master in such a way as to gain even MORE freedoms.

I am not saying it can't work, but in the context of a Modern SSC BDSM relationship,...there would need to be other avenues of expression the Master/slave would want to experience.

In a negotiated relationship,...as much value is placed on the slave as the Master. They each participate in ways to fulfill *each* others desires.

Modern day, as opposed to historical Roman day, would take into account a fact that the slave might be an excellent stock broker, doctor, etc., but if the slave didn't ENJOY being what he/she was required to do in those occupations, a Modern day relationship would allow for negotiation, where a Roman day, would not.

In the relationship with my slave,...I want her to pursue her own interests outside the relationsip that we have negotiated.

If she pursued something I was not comfortable with, we would discuss it,...if she insisted on pursuing her interest, and I was totally against it,...that in itself would give me cause to release her.

(JMHO),...but it's mine,...and I own it.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Re: Really good posts here

I thought that I would add a historical perspective. That of real slaves and slavery. I'm going to use the Roman Empire as the model as I thing that that best fits the BDSM model.

In this respect, Richard was spot on.

Roman slaves weilded a great deal of power. They ran business's for their Masters and performed all sort of autonomous tasks. Vitually every household bookkeeper (and in the governement as well) in the Roman Empire was a slave. The more successful Masters identified early the individual talents of slaves and nutured these talents to the benefit of the Master and the slave both.

However, as Richard pointed out, this autonomy was tempered with the expectation that the slave act in the BEST interest of the Master at all times. Punishment for transgressions was not meted out arbitrarily. If the slave could prove to the Master that the transgression was an honest mistake and that the slave truly thought that the action taken was in the Masters best interest, a serious talking to would be all that was administered. After all, it was/is a mentoring process as well.

Serious Masters understood exactly how much power and trust they were putting in the hands of their slaves.

The typical day began with the slave meeting with and paying homage to the Master. It was at this time that any special instructions were passed along. In many cases, if the slave did not live under the Masters roof and many did not, the slave and Master would not see each other until the next morning. Those slaves that were set up in business settled their accounts with the bookkeeper (also a slave) and the bookkeeper would report any events out of the ordinary, good or bad, to the Master.

For the most part it was an orderly and ammicable system for all concerned. Many free men and women who were with talent but without means would sell themselves into slavery to a particulary well thought of Master.

Many slaves earned their freedom by performing extraordinarilly for their Masters. And even though freed, maintained a close and mutually beneficial realtionship with their former masters.

Based on Richards statements, which model closely my own expectations, it's easy to see how a model such as this has the abiltiy to free both parties to persue personal growth, while still maintaining the power relationship that is the foundation of this kind of relationship.

Or in other words, a wise Dom(es) will encourage the sub to develope their talents and provide the tools to do so. It is the sub's obligation to use those talents and tools in the best interest of their Dom(es). At least using the Roman model for the basis for the relationship.

Ishmael

<edited to add>

Of course in the event of a betrayal the Master held the absolute power of life or death over the slave. A Master could have the slave put to death without anymore than a cusrory statement and that was more for the maintaining of social status and not a requirement.

It just goes to show that there are many different ways to look that the power exchange. Each relationship is unique as the people involved.

Thanks for adding you thoughts to the mix.

Ebony

 

[Ishmael]

Good points Art.

I was merely espousing some historical information. Holding it up as a model, not a rule book.

I understand your statement about releasing a sub, as well as professional choices. Perhaps a sub has an apptitude for the law, but would rather train horses. Something the sub has little apptitude for. Training horses would bring very little material benfit to the relationship. And while material gain is not an end to itself, I for one would rather be comfortable and be able to enjoy some of the creature comforts of life, and share those things with the sub.

Further, we all have to do things that we might not enjoy all that much. It's a scarifice. And because it is a sacrifice puts all the more value on the service.

I'm taking a long road to saying that the practical side of the relationship cannot be ignored.

Ishmael

 

[Ebonyfire]

Perspectives

There are people who use different models to tailor their BDSM and/or relationshps after.

I know some Dom/mes find books that have more regid standards of protocol in them, and they follow it ot the letter. They beleive they are re-creating the definitive D/s relationship.

It if works for you, then fine and dandy. When it all comes down to it, the only people who have to agree are the dominant and submissive involved.

Control is relative after all.

Ebony

 

[cellis]

When I first met Himself, neither of us had a lot of practical day to day skin to skin experience. At one point I suggested that perhaps we (he) needed to attend some function or the other. He explained to me, that He made His own rules as far as our relationship and experiences went. Just because it was done one way on line or by a particular person did not make it right for Him or us.

We have both grown in the relationship and perhaps we don't do things like others do, but what we do works for us. We will never have a 24/7 TPE. It is not possible in either of our lives. We both had far too many other obligations.

However, when we are together, we practise it as much as possible as it suites our needs.

 

[Ebonyfire]

We will never have a 24/7 TPE.

Most people will never have a TPE. There is nothing wrong with that.

What is wonderful is that most people can find what they want and leave alone what they do not want.

Eb

 

[maddi]

I wasn't sure who to quote so I'll just add my comment:

Historically, I understood that slavery was for a contractural period of time and that especially slaves who lived away from the home could persue after work (so to speak interests). After the period of time was up, often the slaves signed on for more..But were free to try another Master or become a free person, in effect allowing them to change careers.

Second I agree in the premise that meeting your master every morning and receiving instructions, etc are a great way for a SSC BDSM relationship to be practical and workable. At least right now it works for us.

I speak every morning with my master and let him know what mandatory appointments and meetings I have (work/business/child related etc) he then decides to add, subtract or leave things alone according to his wishes. Not only does this help me with balance, help me to service him better by knowing what tasks or chores I can accomplish for him but finally it helps him to guage what type of sexual activity we can have that night taking into account our level of exerhertion that day.

It also gives me an extra boost/reminder that I do belong to him and that my time is actually his time. And I am his property.

 

[maddi]

without hijacking this thread...

It would be interesting to hear from other subs in relationships with children in the home on how control and other issues works for them.

Maybe I should start a new thread?

Anyway Dixicritter I liked your comments as well as others. This is also a very good thread.

 

[Ishmael]

Historically, I understood that slavery was for a contractural period of time and that especially slaves who lived away from the home could persue after work (so to speak interests). After the period of time was up, often the slaves signed on for more..But were free to try another Master or become a free person, in effect allowing them to change careers.

Historically this falls under "indentured servitude". A contractual arangement for a specified period of time with payment or service rendered to the indentured.

Slavery is slavery. The full and unquestioned ownership of another person.

Ishmael