the marks of a slave

[eastern sun]

There are a lot of requests for ideas for new dom/mes.

How about this - it's super cheap, easy and fun. You don't need elaborate props or role-play scenarios. (And you can do it to yourself if no one else is around to do it to you.)

Pull your underwear down until just your ass is exposed. Now leave them there. Only the dominant one is allowed to touch them.

That's it.

Lots of possibilities . . . mix it with work or pleasure. Public or private settings. Add a little humiliation and degradation when someone has to go to the bathroom or they threaten to fall to your ankles in the supermarket .

It's super-easy. It can last as long as you want, and it keeps you focussed.

(and it felt really good to wake up this morning with them still on, stretching across my thighs)

 

[rida]

There is only one man I've met with whom I showed zero resistance. It was very fluid, incredibly liberating, and a total surprise because he was not the kind of guy I usually pick. My husband told me to meet him.

He did not deal in pain, just dominance. I met him regularly, and enjoyed it immensely.

I usually pick pain-dealers.

With this other guy, I didn't actually feel free to be myself. He wasn't at all interested in me, really, except as I related to his desires. And I only showed him behavior that he wanted to see.

But interestingly, because I never challenged him - and he had no interest in pain - I felt no need to defend myself, either physically or emotionally.

Resistance, for me, is a form of self-defense, and ironically, one that makes me more uncomfortable in both the short and the long run.

I've been mulling about the above apparently antithetical posts and trying to reconcile them in my mind.

Do you think that the reason you did not feel any resistance was because he was not really interested in you, but satisfied with you performing to fulfill his desires? It would make sense that if resistance is a way of self-defense, there is no need to defend yourself from someone that is not interested in knowing you.
Does it also mean that, because of the lack of pain and resistance, it did not feel challenging?

With the Sadist, it felt liberating at first in its simplicity: I was expected to do what he ordered and suffer for him. He did not have any interest in controlling or getting involved with any other part of my life, only the time we spent together.
As such I kept all my emotional turmoils to myself, sprayed them all over Lit, talked with Hubby, and only showed him the rational, self controlled drama-free rida.

I slipped one time of two and wrote a couple of emotional messages to him, but still so far I can see that I only showed him behavior that he wanted to see. However it is getting to feel frustrating instead of liberating and it is making me want to test the restrains and challenge his dominance.

I'm not sure thou if I am more afraid to discover that he does not care about being Dominant, just Sadist, or to see the extent his sadism can go to affirm his dominance.

(re: giving birth. I felt such a failure for the way I handled the second birth - I should have known and performed better I thought - that I wanted to have a do over: give birth once again but without wanting another kid. )

 

[eastern sun]

I've been mulling about the above apparently antithetical posts and trying to reconcile them in my mind.

Do you think that the reason you did not feel any resistance was because he was not really interested in you, but satisfied with you performing to fulfill his desires? It would make sense that if resistance is a way of self-defense, there is no need to defend yourself from someone that is not interested in knowing you.
Does it also mean that, because of the lack of pain and resistance, it did not feel challenging?

With the Sadist, it felt liberating at first in its simplicity: I was expected to do what he ordered and suffer for him. He did not have any interest in controlling or getting involved with any other part of my life, only the time we spent together.
As such I kept all my emotional turmoils to myself, sprayed them all over Lit, talked with Hubby, and only showed him the rational, self controlled drama-free rida.

I slipped one time of two and wrote a couple of emotional messages to him, but still so far I can see that I only showed him behavior that he wanted to see. However it is getting to feel frustrating instead of liberating and it is making me want to test the restrains and challenge his dominance.

I'm not sure thou if I am more afraid to discover that he does not care about being Dominant, just Sadist, or to see the extent his sadism can go to affirm his dominance.

(re: giving birth. I felt such a failure for the way I handled the second birth - I should have known and performed better I thought - that I wanted to have a do over: give birth once again but without wanting another kid. )

I'm not sure how to answer your questions, rida, or reconcile antithetical statements, except to dig in a bit deeper.

An interesting factor that plays into these BDSM relationships is the fact that often we're providing particular experiences for the other parties involved. Intentionally sought after. Often pre-meditated and often artificial. The best are works of art.

Most of those experiences take place within highly structured parameters - only in this place, during this time, and often only including certain types of interaction.

And then there are the rest of our relationships. Unstructured, uncrafted, messy, spontaneous, complex.

My relationship with my husband is of the second kind. Though we frequently include pre-meditated scenes and overlay a grand meta-structure on top, the middle is really just a mass of interactions that roughly conform with and frequently contradict our mental constructs.

What is so much fun for me in the first kind of relationship, artificial, pre-meditated, and invariably limited, is that I can comfortably let go of every need, desire, or concern that defines me to myself. Pain and fear, in those situations, still triggers a sort of self-preservation instinct that makes me seek to avoid the threat. But take away the pain, and I can easily, fluidly go with the flow.

This guy that I mentioned loved power and dominance, but rarely met women who were totally submissive. He always felt they wanted something from him (and I can imagine having interacted with him, it was a recognition of their existence ). We got along beautifully because I didn't. While I was with him, I could "artificially" and comfortably remove any and all bits that didn't belong in the picture.

With my husband, this wouldn't be possible. A different relationship exists, that includes all the bits he doesn't want. It changes the nature of the interactions.

 

[rida]

I'm not sure how to answer your questions, rida, or reconcile antithetical statements, except to dig in a bit deeper.

An interesting factor that plays into these BDSM relationships is the fact that often we're providing particular experiences for the other parties involved. Intentionally sought after. Often pre-meditated and often artificial. The best are works of art.

Most of those experiences take place within highly structured parameters - only in this place, during this time, and often only including certain types of interaction.

And then there are the rest of our relationships. Unstructured, uncrafted, messy, spontaneous, complex.

My relationship with my husband is of the second kind. Though we frequently include pre-meditated scenes and overlay a grand meta-structure on top, the middle is really just a mass of interactions that roughly conform with and frequently contradict our mental constructs.

What is so much fun for me in the first kind of relationship, artificial, pre-meditated, and invariably limited, is that I can comfortably let go of every need, desire, or concern that defines me to myself. Pain and fear, in those situations, still triggers a sort of self-preservation instinct that makes me seek to avoid the threat. But take away the pain, and I can easily, fluidly go with the flow.

This guy that I mentioned loved power and dominance, but rarely met women who were totally submissive. He always felt they wanted something from him (and I can imagine having interacted with him, it was a recognition of their existence ). We got along beautifully because I didn't. While I was with him, I could "artificially" and comfortably remove any and all bits that didn't belong in the picture.

With my husband, this wouldn't be possible. A different relationship exists, that includes all the bits he doesn't want. It changes the nature of the interactions.

Thank you.

It make perfect sense: somehow those "highly specialized" relationships were there is no other commitment but the enactment of a perfect scenario, carry a freedom that a day to day, uncensored relationship cannot.

I think I'm either just too greedy or unable to compartmentalize as much. In my submission the most fulfilling experiences are when I get a glimpse of his naked soul. Even with the vanilla guys, if I don't care about knowing them and viceversa, I cannot go past the second or third encounter: it gets boring and unfullfilling in too many ways.

Sometime I wonder thou if I could do it for money.

I'll stop derailing the thread. Thank you again

 

[CutieMouse]

(You should have seen me the first time I gave birth. Try telling a baby in motion to "wait." By the second child, I just let myself scream.)

[hijack]

That gave me a fit of giggles... thank you.



[/hijack]

 

[BiBunny]

Master will tell anyone upfront that he has a Messiah complex. He loves (lives?) to fix people, to make them better than what they used to be, to make the entirety of the whole greater than the sum of all its parts.

Of Mistress, he says, "She is what she is, and she will never change."

So it's up to me to be his greatest creation, the one he molds into his idea of perfection, his pride, his great triumph. The human to his God, created in his likeness.

It works, though, because I worship them both.

 

[eastern sun]

Thank you.

It make perfect sense: somehow those "highly specialized" relationships were there is no other commitment but the enactment of a perfect scenario, carry a freedom that a day to day, uncensored relationship cannot.

I think I'm either just too greedy or unable to compartmentalize as much. In my submission the most fulfilling experiences are when I get a glimpse of his naked soul. Even with the vanilla guys, if I don't care about knowing them and viceversa, I cannot go past the second or third encounter: it gets boring and unfullfilling in too many ways.

Sometime I wonder thou if I could do it for money.

But here's the rub, rida. In a great work of art, we can sometimes find access to a very deep truth. A truth that is lost in the muddiness of ordinary experience.

Though I know it's possible to go through all the motions and stay right on the surface (hey, I've done that with my husband), the artificial or limited nature of the other does not imply that those glimpses of the naked soul are not available. Actually, the very fact that they are uncluttered with unfinished business can make it easier to see.

On the other hand, my relationship with my husband has been, in the long run, more fulfilling, because of its complexity, and the way it's able to hold all things in its scope.

 

[eastern sun]

Master will tell anyone upfront that he has a Messiah complex. He loves (lives?) to fix people, to make them better than what they used to be, to make the entirety of the whole greater than the sum of all its parts.

Of Mistress, he says, "She is what she is, and she will never change."

So it's up to me to be his greatest creation, the one he molds into his idea of perfection, his pride, his great triumph. The human to his God, created in his likeness.

It works, though, because I worship them both.

I have loved these types of Pygmalion relationships, and have allowed myself to be reshaped by more than one.

But though we usually think of the sculptor creating the "ideal" out of the raw and crude material he's presented with, it's interesting to note that the original myth of Pygmalion tells a slightly different story.

According to Ovid, Pygmalion rejected women because of prostitution, and devoted himself to his art. After creating an ideal form out of stone, he then fell in love with his creation, and prayed to the gods to bring it to life.

Apparently some Renaissance writers took it the next step, and wrote of how the statue, once brought to life, remained cold and unresponsive to his love due to its stony nature.

It wasn't until Victorian England that "Pygmalion as molder of women" took shape.



edited to add: I have no idea what that has to do with your post, BiBunny. In pursuing some creative ideas, lately, I've been allowing myself a lot of tangential thinking. I would be very interested to hear about your experience of being "created."

 

[evesdream]

"Sex is not about what you think you want. Sex is what I tell you to do."

I think an expression on my face gave my thoughts away.

Hi I'm evesdream, I used to post here more frequently but haven't for a while. My PYL thinks it's a good idea for me to check out this thread so, here I am

The above quote sounds like something he'd say. But frequently, it is also about what he makes me do, that part is so important.

He has a fixation with Pygmalion stories too, but not always in a Mr Fix-it way the way BiBunny was describing, I think it s a control thing. (It's a good thing one of us is a bit of a people pleaser).

Out of curiosity, does anyone sometimes feel like a Pygmalion in reverse - as though your own transformation or the things you do bring out the best in your partner and help to make them a better person, even though they have the control?

 

[eastern sun]

My favorite fetish

I have a tiny doll made of two pieces of rope.

One piece is folded over to make a loop (that's the head). The other shorter string is tied around the middle, creating two arms. And the ends of the looped string are the legs.

I made it years ago, and have carried it and kept it safe ever since.

 

[eastern sun]

Out of curiosity, does anyone sometimes feel like a Pygmalion in reverse - as though your own transformation or the things you do bring out the best in your partner and help to make them a better person, even though they have the control?

I've felt that way, but it's usually because he's pleased with me. And when he's pleased with me, he's much nicer to be around. He spends less energy trying to communicate his dissatisfaction and/or get me to change what I'm doing, so we have more time just to laugh, talk and enjoy each other's company.

 

[eastern sun]

"It's not for slaves to sit around and show how clever they are," he said, ending the conversation.

My analytical mind may be helpful, when it's used for problem-solving. But it is of no use whatsoever when its knife is turned on him.

 

[Homburg]

As infuriating as it can be at times, I appreciate it. I realise that I can be a teensy bit mule-headed on occasion. Having someone around to poke me and tell me I'm being clueless is a good thing.

Even Alexander the Great had advisors, because sometimes somebody just has to speak up and tell the emperor that he's naked.

 

[eastern sun]

As infuriating as it can be at times, I appreciate it. I realise that I can be a teensy bit mule-headed on occasion. Having someone around to poke me and tell me I'm being clueless is a good thing.

Even Alexander the Great had advisors, because sometimes somebody just has to speak up and tell the emperor that he's naked.

Do you think I just touched a sore spot?

 

[evesdream]

As infuriating as it can be at times, I appreciate it. I realise that I can be a teensy bit mule-headed on occasion. Having someone around to poke me and tell me I'm being clueless is a good thing.

Even Alexander the Great had advisors, because sometimes somebody just has to speak up and tell the emperor that he's naked.

Wait did you just compare yourself to Alexander the Great by virtue of your sexuality?

 

[ownedsubgal]

"It's not for slaves to sit around and show how clever they are," he said, ending the conversation.

My analytical mind may be helpful, when it's used for problem-solving. But it is of no use whatsoever when its knife is turned on him.

Daddy always tells other men, about me, "she's too smart for her own good." it is not said with pride.

 

[ecstaticsub]

Out of curiosity, does anyone sometimes feel like a Pygmalion in reverse - as though your own transformation or the things you do bring out the best in your partner and help to make them a better person, even though they have the control?

Yes, Daddy has expressed his realization of this, too. He is in his late 50's and has more than a few submissives before me. He has said that I am the only one who has brought out his keener, more logical, more compassionate sides along with bringing out his edgier Evil Ogre side. I think it is mostly because we have been the longest D/s relationship that he has ever had by at least a year. I've had more time to work on him

 

[Homburg]

Do you think I just touched a sore spot?

That would be my guess.

--

Wait did you just compare yourself to Alexander the Great by virtue of your sexuality?

Do what? I randomly pick a figure that is undeniably a seriously bad-ass leader as an example, and I am somehow connecting myself to him?

It's called an "exaggerated example", and is a pretty common technique. You know like telling a kid in Little League, "You need to practice. Even Curt Schilling practices." Is the kid somehow compared to Curt Schilling by that statement?

 

[CutieMouse]

Master will tell anyone upfront that he has a Messiah complex. He loves (lives?) to fix people, to make them better than what they used to be, to make the entirety of the whole greater than the sum of all its parts.

Of Mistress, he says, "She is what she is, and she will never change."

So it's up to me to be his greatest creation, the one he molds into his idea of perfection, his pride, his great triumph. The human to his God, created in his likeness.

It works, though, because I worship them both.

I have loved these types of Pygmalion relationships, and have allowed myself to be reshaped by more than one.

But though we usually think of the sculptor creating the "ideal" out of the raw and crude material he's presented with, it's interesting to note that the original myth of Pygmalion tells a slightly different story.

According to Ovid, Pygmalion rejected women because of prostitution, and devoted himself to his art. After creating an ideal form out of stone, he then fell in love with his creation, and prayed to the gods to bring it to life.

Apparently some Renaissance writers took it the next step, and wrote of how the statue, once brought to life, remained cold and unresponsive to his love due to its stony nature.

It wasn't until Victorian England that "Pygmalion as molder of women" took shape.

edited to add: I have no idea what that has to do with your post, BiBunny. In pursuing some creative ideas, lately, I've been allowing myself a lot of tangential thinking. I would be very interested to hear about your experience of being "created."

[hijack]

I must admit I love the theory behind Pygmalion; the potential-ness of being... one of the few things that truly pisses me off about one particular failed relationship, is that by the time it was over my passion for such a thing had been pretty much bludgeoned to death. I miss it [the dynamic].

[/hijack]

 

[evesdream]

That would be my guess.

--

Do what? I randomly pick a figure that is undeniably a seriously bad-ass leader as an example, and I am somehow connecting myself to him?

It's called an "exaggerated example", and is a pretty common technique. You know like telling a kid in Little League, "You need to practice. Even Curt Schilling practices." Is the kid somehow compared to Curt Schilling by that statement?

*poke*

Yes, Daddy has expressed his realization of this, too. He is in his late 50's and has more than a few submissives before me. He has said that I am the only one who has brought out his keener, more logical, more compassionate sides along with bringing out his edgier Evil Ogre side. I think it is mostly because we have been the longest D/s relationship that he has ever had by at least a year. I've had more time to work on him

I think I really like the idea of mutual transformation. But what I like about the dominant approach is the overtness, the directness of it, the intention - "you will be this".

I'd like to think that I bring out his best self, even when (or maybe even sometimes because) he's deals me his worst.

 

[Homburg]

*poke*

Ahem, right.

Carry on.

 

[eastern sun]

I think I really like the idea of mutual transformation. But what I like about the dominant approach is the overtness, the directness of it, the intention - "you will be this".

I'd like to think that I bring out his best self, even when (or maybe even sometimes because) he's deals me his worst.

"Beauty and the Beast" is an incredibly romantic story. Even the Disney movie makes me fall in love over and over again. But I think the Pygmalion relationship in the context of an M/s (or D/s) relationship is inherently different.

Though transformation of both parties may occur, as change is constant throughout life, I don't believe that D/s implies mutual transformation as a goal. Nor does it imply that we are heading towards our best selves.

Perhaps, successful relationships of any kind imply that both parties have found some harmony between their selfish interests and their willingness to sacrifice for the other's happiness.

But D/s, slavery, and by extension the Pygmalion-type relationships in this context, are not inherently designed to make us better people. Nor does it help me to cope with the demands of the relationship if I expect it to happen.

It's more likely that I'll be asked to do things that challenge my fixed image of myself. Some of those things violate my standards of ethics and beauty. I may have to accept that this romantic artist I've given myself to is actually a bastard and lewd voyeur. The things that turn him on may have nothing to do with my own desires.

I have found myself abandoning aspects of myself that I cherish, often for long periods of time, because they hold no interest to him. And I have found that while I have adopted many of his interests, actively participating in his world, it is not a reciprocal relationship. (I still have my own interests, but they occur on my time when time permits, or with his express permission and encouragement.)

He expects me to get better at pleasing him, even though he knows I will sometimes fail. I do not expect him to become a better person, even though he sometimes does.

I think we s-type beauties often comfort ourselves with the hope that the D-type's beast will be pacified by the strength and gentleness of our devotion.

But what happens if it doesn't? What happens when you change and he doesn't?

What happens, ten years down the line, when he takes a unilateral action out of the blue that changes the course of your life?

Will you be ready?

 

[evesdream]

Good question.

 

[eastern sun]

Daddy always tells other men, about me, "she's too smart for her own good." it is not said with pride.

Once in a while, my husband seems genuinely impressed with my intelligence. The rest of the time, it's either a useful tool or an obstacle in our path.

 

[eastern sun]

Correction: My husband wants to point out that I'm full of shit.

"Yeah, just write that he has the maturity to recognize that our relationship is reciprocal."

It is true. Our relationship is reciprocal.