M/s...why or why not?

[rosco rathbone]

This is the difference, as I see it, in a nutshell.

In every committed relationship I've ever had, *both* of us have had careers, friendships, community service commitments, and family relationships that comprise significant parts of our lives.

If I just decided to pick up and move across the country, for whatever reason, doing so would have had a very significant impact on the life of any partner I've ever had. She would expect to have a voice, and I would want her to have a voice, in that decision. For something like that, the influence and consideration goes both ways.

Like Rosco, I'm a control freak, no question! I want things in my home the way I want them, have ZERO patience for pushback, arguing, or negotiation in day-to-day living, and absolutely must be the aggressor or one in control in order to become physically aroused.

But the property thing doesn't interest me. I don't know why, it just doesn't.

I'm cosigning on this.

Told you we need our own forum.

 

[Homburg]

I don't call myself "master" or consider myself one. Nor do I identify with it. I do get something from the concept of ownership/property. No, I don't really understand why either.

The thing is, one of the big attractants for me in M/s is the simplicity. It is a convenient term for what I do. I don't want contracts. I don't want complex rules. I don't want to micromanage. I don't want to have to remember complex punishments for every frikken infraction. It's not my thing.

I am in charge, no arguments, no negotiation. I accept that my girls both enjoy calling me "master", and being called "slave". I accept that the M/s label, and concept, is the closest to what I do.

I do not, however, fetishize the concept. I think it is more of being comfortable with the labels. I accept the power that the words have in this dynamic, and use them.




ET - Arguments occur. We're human. But there are no arguments about who is in charge of what.

 

[Netzach]

so when M has a significant decision to make it is discussed and some kind of mutual resolution is reached. cool beans. but does he have the prerogative to go ahead and make a decision that is NOT really in line with one you would make for him? can he ever just say, "well i understand this is not what you would prefer, but i'm going ahead with it anyway" ? that is the kind of scenario that comes to mind when i think of a Dominant not taking control in certain areas...that in those areas, the submissive can actually go against the Dominant if they choose. and like, the Dominant is cool with that?

Right, this is why I don't see my rel. as formalized D/s or M/s. There are certain areas in which he could and would do that, but they're really huge. Like "I have searched the fabric of my very conscience, and I cannot do that for you, I'm sorry" kind of stuff. But I think I'd still be brought in. Whereas I have made choices that are like "here's the scoop."

I can't recall a single time or a single decision where I wasn't consulted, from where do we eat tonight to where are we going to live. Thanks for this thread, cause it's really interesting to look at my marriage with this lens.

I'm with you - if it's a D/s relationship that's not gonna happen. At worst, they might make a decision I don't like under my lack of communicating my desires and having to take a stab on their own.

But so much of the time he would not and could not so it's not like it's straight up vanilla in which case I had no hope of outlet. Either it's vanilla of me or just really my permissive personality at work.

I'm the opposite of JMo and RR on this - I have a high tolerance for pushback, flexibility, whatever - but there are the things about which I'm inflexible. And then there's a larger cosmic index, where I recognize I'm not in control and M's not either. It's those mid-level things that really matter to me.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I'm cosigning on this.

Told you we need our own forum.

interesting. i never would have pegged you as the "goes both ways" type, but more so the "i just don't give a crap about that other stuff" type.

 

[rosco rathbone]

interesting. i never would have pegged you as the "goes both ways" type, but more so the "i just don't give a crap about that other stuff" type.

I'm always going to take careers, family, etc into consideration. I don't need someone mizerable and resenting me.

 

[Netzach]

I'm always going to take careers, family, etc into consideration. I don't need someone mizerable and resenting me.

And I just want them to make as much money as possible for my own selfish reasons. Disregard for blood relations and dicking around at work can interrupt that flow.

 

[JMohegan]

I'm always going to take careers, family, etc into consideration. I don't need someone mizerable and resenting me.

Exactly.

 

[Keroin]

I'm not in a 24/7 TPE or an M/s relationship and never will be.

I can turn my submission on and off as needs must. I don't care how this is perceived by anyone but me and my SO. My freedom, on a larger scale, is of great value to me and, within my current relationship, to my PYL also.

*Note: This next part is NOT a condemnation or judgment of anyone who who is M/s, just my own thinking based on my particular experiences. I think OSG, Homburg, NH and anyone else who lives the M/s life are just hunky dory in my books*

Ethically, I also would have a hard time living as a slave, even consensually. It is hard to put into words without sounding offensive but the general gist of it is that people gave their lives, figuratively and literally, to give me my freedom and I honour their sacrifice, no matter how deeply I submit within my relationship, by retaining the title of "free" woman.

Added: BTW, Chuck and I do not use safe words. I trust him implicitly.

 

[ownedsubgal]

This is the difference, as I see it, in a nutshell.

In every committed relationship I've ever had, *both* of us have had careers, friendships, community service commitments, and family relationships that comprise significant parts of our lives.

If I just decided to pick up and move across the country, for whatever reason, doing so would have had a very significant impact on the life of any partner I've ever had. She would expect to have a voice, and I would want her to have a voice, in that decision. For something like that, the influence and consideration goes both ways.

Like Rosco, I'm a control freak, no question! I want things in my home the way I want them, have ZERO patience for pushback, arguing, or negotiation in day-to-day living, and absolutely must be the aggressor or one in control in order to become physically aroused.

But the property thing doesn't interest me. I don't know why, it just doesn't.

woo hoo, yay me for finally getting it!

i can get why the property thing doesn't interest you JMohegan. you want a real partner, someone who has just as much responsibility as you do in building a life together and looking out for the betterment of the relationship. you want someone who is making the conscious choice and renewing the commitment to be yours every day. you do not seem to find the idea of a woman being at all dependent on your appealing. it seems that you desire someone you can look to as an equal as opposed to "lesser than."

 

[00Syd]

Do the "M"s here tend to see their "S"s as "lesser than"? Or do the "S"s here see themselves that way?

 

[ownedsubgal]

I'm always going to take careers, family, etc into consideration. I don't need someone mizerable and resenting me.

eh, speaking as a slave, misery and resentment have been very fleeting emotions for me. resentment i don't think i felt at all after the first 9 months...misery i just don't feel. general sadness, or as Daddy calls it, "woe is me"...that comes and then goes so quickly it's no longer noteworthy. as a slave you don't (or at least i don't) have all of these expectations that other people take for granted, such as having your feelings taken into account, your welfare being a top priority, even happiness. therefore you don't experience this tremendous emotional drop when Master is not so nice. more often things stay on a pretty even keel of acceptance, like my favorite mantra, "eh, such is life."

edited to add, if what you desire is someone who will be more often than not deliriously happy and in good spirits, that particular mindset may not be appealing to you.

 

[Homburg]

Ethically, I also would have a hard time living as a slave, even consensually. It is hard to put into words without sounding offensive but the general gist of it is that people gave their lives, figuratively and literally, to give me my freedom and I honour their sacrifice, no matter how deeply I submit within my relationship, by retaining the title of "free" woman.

This was actually one of the hardest things for me to swallow about the structure. And remains tough to swallow, so I take no offense at all. Hopefully, the fact that I am aware of it and that it does not sit comfortably for me mitigates the usage of the terminology a bit for you.

It is sort of like how some people are cool with rape roleplay, but I can't wrap my head around it. Some of the things we do are just not mediagenic.

--

Do the "M"s here tend to see their "S"s as "lesser than"? Or do the "S"s here see themselves that way?

People are people. They are no more "less than" me than I am "less than" my clients or my boss at work.

 

[rosco rathbone]

eh, speaking as a slave, misery and resentment have been very fleeting emotions for me. resentment i don't think i felt at all after the first 9 months...misery i just don't feel. general sadness, or as Daddy calls it, "woe is me"...that comes and then goes so quickly it's no longer noteworthy. as a slave you don't (or at least i don't) have all of these expectations that other people take for granted, such as having your feelings taken into account, your welfare being a top priority, even happiness. therefore you don't experience this tremendous emotional drop when Master is not so nice. more often things stay on a pretty even keel of acceptance, like my favorite mantra, "eh, such is life."

edited to add, if what you desire is someone who will be more often than not deliriously happy and in good spirits, that particular mindset may not be appealing to you.

I think I'd be cool with the accepting slave. Just never came across anyone like that in my adventures in females.

 

[Keroin]

This was actually one of the hardest things for me to swallow about the structure. And remains tough to swallow, so I take no offense at all. Hopefully, the fact that I am aware of it and that it does not sit comfortably for me mitigates the usage of the terminology a bit for you.

It is sort of like how some people are cool with rape roleplay, but I can't wrap my head around it. Some of the things we do are just not mediagenic.

You know, it's cool. Like I said, it's my own personal thing and I'm honestly fine with everyone else's use of the word and lifestyle. And I should note that there are lots of other reasons I couldn't be in an M/s relationship, not the least of which is that the idea of constancy gives me the heebie jeebies and has me reaching for my travelin' shoes.

Chuck says he treats me as if I have a form of sexual ADHD. It works.

Rape roleplay doesn't bother me at all. To each their own.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I think I'd be cool with the accepting slave. Just never came across anyone like that in my adventures in females.

well you do like those feisty west indians.

 

[rosco rathbone]

well you do like those feisty west indians.

I'm a fool for the shaply rear end and the wiggle in the walk.

 

[nh23]

Meh. Do you honestly thing I lord the status I have in my relationship with viv over the children? They aren't part of our agreement/dynamic. And goodness knows she is better at dealing with them than I am.

Delegation of authority is one of the most important lessons learned by anyone in charge. You CANNOT do everything yourself if your organisation is more complex than you and one other person. And if you try, you aren't really in charge at all, as you are the one doing everything.

--



This is one of my problems with the whole discussion, and with M/s before I tried it. Everyone and their brother conflates M/s with micromanagement. I had this same issue before I started, and Evil Geoff was one of the big ones that set me straight on the topic.

A good slave does not need to be told to do every little thing. My two, and the others I know, have duties, responsibilities, often jobs, and carry those out sans any sort of day-to-day directions at all. I don't tell mine what to wear each day, or what to eat, or when to go to bed. Days will go by without me giving management style directions at all. I would lose my mind if I had to micromanage every little thing. I don't have time for that, let alone interest in it.

Yes, I have the option to control these things, and the veto power in general, and? Every dominant type that posts around here says the same thing. Micromanagement is micromanagement, and not even remotely specific to M/s. If anything, I've seen more instances of what I would call micromanagement in self-identified D/s relationships.

I can't even begin to go into the rules I've seen in some D/s relationships. I'm talking bullet-pointed lists multiple pages long. My gals have two rules. Two.

--

People have some odd ideas about M/s. I can understand why, as I had some of those odd ideas myself. There's not so much difference day to day. The bullshit that shows up in erotica is just that, bullshit. People in M/s dynamics have to live their lives just like you and everybody else, and a lot of the concepts people have about M/s are in direct contradiction to living life on a day to day basis for most people.

Ditto. He doesn't micromanage me. I'm perfectly capable of getting myself dressed, going to work, etc. He has final say in all those things though. Just like what's going on right now. I'm smart enough to know to eat meals on my own. The new meds I'm taking though give me severe anorexia. So in the last week he's taken control over what I eat. Normally that's not an issue.

As far as the kids go. I take care of them. They aren't his biological children, nor are they part of our M/s dynamic. I don't think that kids should be a part of any dynamic.

I think sometimes when people hear M/s they think of a brainless slave and a I am Master hear me roar type of M. They aren't all like that. The majority of the functioning ones I know of aren't like that.

 

[BiBunny]

This thread is both fascinating and confusing. Fascinating in the sense that I love to hear what people think about these kinds of things, and confusing in that I seem to fit some people's definitions of D/s and some people's definitions of M/s.

Well, whatever it is, it works for me.

 

[00Syd]

"whatever works" seems to be a good motto for people 'round these parts.

 

[intothewoods]

<snip>The more we are together the less formal that is, but the deeper it goes.

This sentence really resonates for me.

If M/s is not necessarily micromanagement nor active control over things like career, finances and friendships, but the power to actively control if one so desires, I get that and it is definitely not for me.

I think our style is really more D as leader. Benevolent leader maybe? It's definitely not role play, since it's always there. Actually, come to think of it, M/s feels like role play to me, and I think that's not because it is role play but because to me, it's not a natural fit.

I would never make a financial or career decision unilaterally that impacts my family, nor would I maintain a friendship that is toxic to my family or impacts my family negatively. But that's standard for many loving, successful relationships.

Our finances are all shared, though we each have our own account for our own whatever expenses, buying each other gifts, money for kidlet's clothes or school stuff, etc.

We do make all major decisions together. Again, it's more like D as leader. I am more often likely to say, well, here's all the information, here are my concerns, what do you think we should do? Unless it's about something he doesn't care about. And then I can't get him to make a decision if I wanted him to!

As for parenting decisions, in a dating situation, my kid is my territory. I do not want to be with someone who wants control there. Or my finances. Or my career. When you become life partners and live together though, I guess what feels right is a mutually agreed upon decision. I would not want to do something that pisses him off. And I don't want to feel like I'm not heard either. Obviously I also need to do what's best for my kid. I think in those major areas, M/s, D/s, vanilla, whatever, For most people, you really have to pick someone with whom you're on the same page most of the time.

I will also admit that I do sometimes push back, argue and negotiate. I'm not a brat. I don't refuse to do things or whatever, but there are certain areas about which I feel strongly. Hardwood floors are more attractive than carpet. Does that mean I get them? Nope. But I have a point of view and I'm not afraid to share it. Mister Man likes the fiery redhead thing within reason, and then evidently it's time for "the hammer to fall" and that's the end of it. Or, stop speaking about this, as I have testicles, I don't care.

 

[graceanne]

No, I'm not saying that D/s submissives are selfish and making their decisions only on their own interests. Just that there are no decisions made that are not informed by the dynamic, and no areas where her interests take exclusive primacy.

If the lack of this is an M/s relationship, then that's what K and I have. Not that we call it that.

I maintain veto rights on the kids, but I rarely use it. The only time I do is when K is so mad he's not thinking clearly. If he was a man who didn't ever lose his temper I'd never use my veto rights.

But, whether I agree with his decisions or not, if he makes one (even regarding the kids), and he's totally calm and rational when he makes it I'll tell them flat out that he's the boss. I might, later, talk to him about his decision, and we might hash it out in private, but that's as far as it goes.

Meh. Do you honestly thing I lord the status I have in my relationship with viv over the children? They aren't part of our agreement/dynamic. And goodness knows she is better at dealing with them than I am.

Delegation of authority is one of the most important lessons learned by anyone in charge. You CANNOT do everything yourself if your organisation is more complex than you and one other person. And if you try, you aren't really in charge at all, as you are the one doing everything.

I wasn't remarking on how things work with you and viv. For us, at one point, K and I tried a TPE and he became a total fucking asshole. We nearly ended up divorced. Suddenly he didn't have to convey common respect to anyone (please, thank you, etc). It lasted three months and it ended when his shitty attitude started conveying itself to the kids. If took me nearly six months to undo that bad decision on my part.

Honestly, if K wants something he usually gets it. Why? The whole 'submissive' thing, I guess. *shrugs* I think that when the kids get older we'll try the whole TPE thing again. For one thing every day he becomes a better man and learns to control his temper more. For another, I'd love to be in a TPE. It's just not gonna happen right now.

 

[intothewoods]

You know, it's cool. Like I said, it's my own personal thing and I'm honestly fine with everyone else's use of the word and lifestyle. And I should note that there are lots of other reasons I couldn't be in an M/s relationship, not the least of which is that the idea of constancy gives me the heebie jeebies and has me reaching for my travelin' shoes.

Chuck says he treats me as if I have a form of sexual ADHD. It works.

Rape roleplay doesn't bother me at all. To each their own.

Excuse the hijack - but is Chuck still the penguin or is Chuck the codename for your PYL/significant other?

 

[00Syd]

T
I will also admit that I do sometimes push back, argue and negotiate. I'm not a brat. I don't refuse to do things or whatever, but there are certain areas about which I feel strongly.

I know that this has absolutely nothing to do with your post as a whole, but this made me think about how much I hate the implication that to push back, argue, negotiate, to have strong feelings about certain things, to express your opinions = brat. To me it just means that the power play within the relationship is more... dynamic. At least for me.

 

[Netzach]

I know that this has absolutely nothing to do with your post as a whole, but this made me think about how much I hate the implication that to push back, argue, negotiate, to have strong feelings about certain things, to express your opinions = brat. To me it just means that the power play within the relationship is more... dynamic. At least for me.

I don't even see it as that. I like information gathering.

Periodically M even....has a better idea than I did. OMG.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I know that this has absolutely nothing to do with your post as a whole, but this made me think about how much I hate the implication that to push back, argue, negotiate, to have strong feelings about certain things, to express your opinions = brat. To me it just means that the power play within the relationship is more... dynamic. At least for me.

that sounds too much like testing to me, as opposed to letting go and just living.