The selfish Dominant

[catalina_francisco]

In recent discussions I have brought up that my main concern as a Dominant is looking out for number one, myself.

Although being a Dominant means being responsible, having at the least as much control over yourself as you have over your partner, there is a lot of selfishness in it. I do not feel it is bad, most submissive are service orientated, they want to please while IMO Dominants want to be pleased.

This is why I have rules and I expect them to be followed, for my own kicks. This is why I take care of my partner to my best ability purely out of self-interest. Of course I am not only a complete selfish bastard and have a heart and compassion but have found that I have been driven mostly by my own needs.

I wonder how others see this, also what is the submissive take on this, do you feel that a Dominant is selfish or not?

Francisco.

 

[Quint]

Yes, entirely. I think the same is true for submissives as well, so I will reply for myself as well. My definition of "selfish" carries no negative connotations--for me, it is purely understanding what one wants and needs and striving for it.

T needs to be in control, to have his desires met without question by someone who wants to meet them. I need to be commanded and expected to obey. We need the balance the other gives. Being in this relationship with him is the most profoundly, satisfyingly selfish thing I can do. It fulfills my needs perfectly. Likewise with him.

The truly selfless thing for T and me would be to forsake what we have recognized as our needs and remain in a less-than-satisfying relationship. Even I'm not that kind of masochist.

 

[Quint]

Avast, ye scurvy double post!

 

[ethereal~minx]

...I wonder how others see this, also what is the submissive take on this, do you feel that a Dominant is selfish or not?

Francisco.

You said that you are not only a 'complete selfish bastard but also have a heart and compassion'... <writing and deleting so many times it's not funny>

ok. no i don't believe that a Dominant is selfish when there is heart and compassion along w/ that bastardly 'self--interest'

now if you really mean you're selfish and do not really care about the feelings or interest of your submissive or have little compassion, then yes~ i believe the Dominant is selfish and one that i would not want to walk long down the road with...

i am equal to my Dominant and because of that i am willing to surrender myself to His desires and self-interest so that we both grow together and become creators of our world : )
ok *laughing embarrassed*
what was the question?

 

[Ebonyfire]

In recent discussions I have brought up that my main concern as a Dominant is looking out for number one, myself.

Although being a Dominant means being responsible, having at the least as much control over yourself as you have over your partner, there is a lot of selfishness in it. I do not feel it is bad, most submissive are service orientated, they want to please while IMO Dominants want to be pleased.

This is why I have rules and I expect them to be followed, for my own kicks. This is why I take care of my partner to my best ability purely out of self-interest. Of course I am not only a complete selfish bastard and have a heart and compassion but have found that I have been driven mostly by my own needs.

I wonder how others see this, also what is the submissive take on this, do you feel that a Dominant is selfish or not?

Francisco.

Just add Bitch in place of bastard, and you got Me to a T!

 

[catalina_francisco]

Re: Re: The selfish Dominant

Just add Bitch in place of bastard, and you got Me to a T!

Must be why we like you.

C

 

[Ebonyfire]

Re: Re: Re: The selfish Dominant

Must be why we like you.

C

Thanks.

See My subs know Me, and they know what I am about. They have two choices:

1. To accept Me and go with the program.
2. To keep stepping.

 

[Pure]

Hi Francisco,

I remember asking about this 'out for number 1' question.

In one sense the dominant is as you say. He makes rules that are in his interest. He maintains the sub, just as a hunter maintains the dogs--they are a necessary part of a sport he enjoys. The hunter is not the equal of the dogs.

OTOH, you often have used 'out for number 1' in a bad sense. You described the person without morals as 'out for number 1'-- i.e., would 'take advantage' when it's in his interest; and you didn't like this.

Let's take a simple question: you make a promise: you tell your sub you'll spend a weekend together at the seaside. But when the time comes, you realize a favorite sports or entertainment event will happen the night you're supposed to leave. In short, you might enjoy it more than the sea side.

If a person is 'out for number 1' in the bad sense s/he'll break the promise. Put the sub's interests behind his own, and postpone or cancel the trip. Would you?

As another poster said, the 'equal sub idea seems to be incompatible with a dom/me who's 'out for number 1' in either sense.

Equal dom/sub is a kind of equal-romance; modern equality; a role play where no one caters to the other. where both persons' desires receive equal consideration. robert and elizabeth barrett browning.


regards,
J.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hello Quint,

I find that your views in this are very close to mine.

Francisco.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hello ethereal~minx,

Without compassion I would not consider myself Human, so of course it must be an essential trait IMO.

Francisco.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi Eb,

As often I find myself to have opinions very close to yours.

Francisco.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Let's take a simple question: you make a promise: you tell your sub you'll spend a weekend together at the seaside. But when the time comes, you realize a favorite sports or entertainment event will happen the night you're supposed to leave. In short, you might enjoy it more than the sea side.

Hello Pure,

The question is easily answered; it is in the self-interest of the Dominant to keep his word. Once his word is broken the opinion of the submissive will be affected by this, maybe not the first time but next time or the time after that. The more a submissive respects and trusts her Dominant, the more she is willing to do for him. She will be easier to dominate, so purely out of self-interest he needs to keep his promise.

Next to that of course there is little matter of honour and trustworthiness.

There is nothing wrong with a Dominant looking out for his own needs, as long as he knows the limits, as long as he is human and has compassion and honour because without it there is no self respect and if you can not respect yourself then no one will respect you.

Francisco.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Hello Pure,

The question is easily answered; it is in the self-interest of the Dominant to keep his word. Once his word is broken the opinion of the submissive will be affected by this, maybe not the first time but next time or the time after that. The more a submissive respects and trusts her Dominant, the more she is willing to do for him. She will be easier to dominate, so purely out of self-interest he needs to keep his promise.

Next to that of course there is little matter of honour and trustworthiness.

There is nothing wrong with a Dominant looking out for his own needs, as long as he knows the limits, as long as he is human and has compassion and honour because without it there is no self respect and if you can not respect yourself then no one will respect you.

Francisco.

You know, training a sub is a lot like training a dog. When training a dog, you have to let the dog know that you are the pack leader.

It is the same with a sub. The sub must know who the Leader is, in short who is in charge.

If anyone is offended by the dog analogy, too damn bad, deal with it.

 

[catalina_francisco]

You know, training a sub is a lot like training a dog. When training a dog, you have to let the dog know that you are the packn leader.

Exactly and just as when you train a dog consistency is very important.

Bad behaviour needs to be punished, good behaviour needs to be rewarded. The sub must know where you as a dominant stand.

And excuse the analogy between the dog and the sub. Although in some instances I have called Catalina my bitch.

Francisco.

 

[Ebonyfire]

[QUO TE]Originally posted by Ebonyfire
You know, training a sub is a lot like training a dog. When training a dog, you have to let the dog know that you are the packn leader.

whe
Exactly and just as when you train a dog consistency is very important.

Bad behaviour needs to be trained, good behaviour needs to be rewarded. The sub must know where you as a dominant stand.

And excuse the analogy between the dog and the sub. Although in some instances I have called Catalina my bitch.

Francisco. [/QUOTE]

My new boy is called punk assed bitch. Every time I grab a hand full of hair, pull his face close, and call him My punk assed bitch. his cock jumps! I wonder why?

cock knows he is a punk assed bitch!

 

[catalina_francisco]

As a little note when I started to be mentored long, long time ago. This was dogma which I listened to every day, the selfishness of a Dominant, looking out for your own interest while still being human and compassionate. I was thought not to look at the short term but at the long term effects of a decision.

I have noticed that this is something more experienced dominants do often, they concentrate not on the short term effects of a decision but what the influence will be long term.

Francisco.

 

[Ebonyfire]

I have noticed that this is something more experienced dominants do often, they concentrate not on the short term effects of a decision but what the influence will be long term.

Francisco.

I totally agree with this. And in my opinion to look at the long term, you have to have a basis for thought. What I mean is that you cannot plan for the long term, without knowing Your sub inside and out.

 

[ethereal~minx]

equality ~~
why can two people not be equal and still have a D/s relationship?

one is D
one is s
they both know this and acknowledge, appreciate, respect

why would it be role-play?
why would it not be heaven on earth?

 

[Ebonyfire]

equality ~~
why can two people not be equal and still have a D/s relationship?

one is D
one is s
they both know this and acknowledge, appreciate, respect

why would it be role-play?
why would it not be heaven on earth?

I do not think it is a matter of equality. It is a matter of parity.

 

[Pure]

Hi F,

In answer to the question of whether a dom/me would break a promise when that appeared to be in his interest,


The question is easily answered; it is in the self-interest of the Dominant to keep his word. Once his word is broken the opinion of the submissive will be affected by this, maybe not the first time but next time or the time after that. The more a submissive respects and trusts her Dominant, the more she is willing to do for him. She will be easier to dominate, so purely out of self-interest he needs to keep his promise.

Next to that of course there is little matter of honour and trustworthiness.

There is nothing wrong with a Dominant looking out for his own needs, as long as he knows the limits, as long as he is human and has compassion and honour because without it there is no self respect and if you can not respect yourself then no one will respect you.

=========

This ideal dom/me acts in enlightened (long range) self interest and demonstrates honor and trustworthiness, and has compassion.

It seems to be just a matter of labels; your 'self interested' person with honor is just what others call the moral person who does his duty.

Kant, a spokesperson for a high morality, said to act on a maxim that one could will to be universal law. Hence, he said, another is never to be treated as a means only, but always as an end.
Hence one does not murder or steal from or lie to others. Essentially he held that a moral person is NOT to do as we say in English 'make an exception on his own behalf.' I.e., he's NOT to say, "Other's ought to tell the truth, but this time I need not *even though there are no special circumstances*, for I need not be bound as others are."

So my question are: 1)How is your self interested person with honor any different from Kant's moral agent? 2) Can you give an illustration of something your allegedly self interested dom-person does in a particular situation that the 'moral person' would not do? (Or do you hold that morality and enlightened, long-range self interest always coincide?)

It's just an impression, but I think Eb comes across as self interested, in a way you do not. In a word, your 'honor' leads to what anyone else would call a highly moral and egalitarian course of action. Your sub is not at all like a dog (but a romantic equal), whereas Eb's is.

best,
J.

 

[Arden]

I wonder how others see this, also what is the submissive take on this, do you feel that a Dominant is selfish or not?

Francisco.

I believe the degree of selfishness posessed by any one dominant may be linked to their personality type as well as their lifestyle. Whatever works for you is fine, as long as it works for your submissive(s).

I also think the degree of selfishness in a dominant could hinder the formation of a relationship with some submissive persons. But, that's why you get to know each other very well before entering into a D/s relationship. If you're not compatible with one, find another with whom you are.

With a submissive, selfishness and wanting something badly can be an great opportunity for growth if handled properly by the dominant. Edited to clarify: In a positive manner, not only through discipline.

 

[ownedsubgal]

In recent discussions I have brought up that my main concern as a Dominant is looking out for number one, myself.

Although being a Dominant means being responsible, having at the least as much control over yourself as you have over your partner, there is a lot of selfishness in it. I do not feel it is bad, most submissive are service orientated, they want to please while IMO Dominants want to be pleased.

This is why I have rules and I expect them to be followed, for my own kicks. This is why I take care of my partner to my best ability purely out of self-interest. Of course I am not only a complete selfish bastard and have a heart and compassion but have found that I have been driven mostly by my own needs.

I wonder how others see this, also what is the submissive take on this, do you feel that a Dominant is selfish or not?

Francisco.

this is somewhat similar to things my Master has told me about his own Dominance. i do feel that there is some natural selfishness and self-serving in Dominance, but as you said i don't believe that equates to being insensitive or lacking compassion. when it comes to me, my Master is EXTREMELY "tender hearted"...He loves his lil one. ...but despite this, he has many needs and desires which are purely selfish, that have nothing whatever to do with anything i would want or need or enjoy, and in my opinion anyway, i don't feel that is a contradiction. just a part of being a Dominant. He has enough sincere love for me that he would not ever do anything just for me, with the purpose of keeping me happy so i'd in turn keep HIM happy. that's manipulative and i feel very strongly that there's never a need for anyone to be manipulative within a committed relationship, especially if you claim to love one another.

 

[Solitude]

The way I see it, selfishness is a two way street. Both people in the relationship do what they do out of their own best interest -- the Dom/me leading and controlling because it is what s/he needs, the submissive following likewise because it is what s/he needs. Eb's "punk assed bitch"'s cock lurches because a selfish inner desire is being fulfilled, just as mine does when my girl serves me or kneels at my side or yields to my commands. We're ultimately all just getting what we want in one form or another, and I'd hazard to guess that if we weren't then the vast majority of us wouldn't be involved in this type of relationship in the first place.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi F, 1)How is your self interested person with honor any different from Kant's moral agent? 2) Can you give an illustration of something your allegedly self interested dom-person does in a particular situation that the 'moral person' would not do? (Or do you hold that morality and enlightened, long-range self interest always coincide?)

Pure I would gladly answer your question but I can not relate to the moralistic person you describe. I simply do not understand that process maybe you could elaborate a bit on it.

But in any case, there is no equality in the relationship between Catalina and myself. There is a difference between seeming to be equal and being equal. I love my slave so I allow her lots of freedom because it makes her happier; going back to the selfish motivation I could say a happier slave makes a better slave. But I just like to indulge her.

However that does not mean there is equality between us, quite the contrary, I just feel at ease enough to not have to push the point continuously. In reality Catalina has no rights, none that I have not granted her, she has the freedom I want her to have.

Also I do not believe in micromanagement. I do not need to control every little detail of her daily existence, do not want to control her every minute of her life. That would be too much work. I have of course by time become more lacks since I can, because she has reach a level as a slave I do not need to resort to more intensive means.

Francisco.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Re: Re: The selfish Dominant

i feel very strongly that there's never a need for anyone to be manipulative within a committed relationship, especially if you claim to love one another.

Hello OSG,

As always your entry is intelligent, articulated and highly interesting. I do feel that there is some degree of manipulation a Dominant will have to resort to in a Master/slave partnership, but it depends how exactly you describe manipulation.

I also agree with you that if the only motivation of a Dominant was purely his self interest and a dominant would only act on those feelings the relationship could become very manipulative and to be honest also quite boring.

I am trying to look at the motivation of a Dominant concentrating on selfishness. I am trying to overlook little things as love and honour and trust. These to me are as essential as the selfishness of a Dominant.

Let me put it slightly different, do you think a Dominant needs to have at the minimum a certain degree of self-interest?

Francisco.