"I want to be trained"

[Eraser]

As a Dom I hear these words all the time. I see these in posts by sub's (some Dom's out there should say that too). Ask one of these people what that means and you'll get silence 9 times out of 10. What is being trained? What does it mean to be trained? Does that mean you know how to roll over and play dead? There are lots of websites with descriptions of commands, positions, expectations. Is this training? What about generic training or Formal training?


As a self proclaimed formal trainer what the heck do I do? (no this is not a personal ad)

I personally break training down into 3 separate groups:

1> Introductory
2> Formal
3> Personal

Introductory:
This is my personal favorite type of training. The main focus is to introduce and help a submissive find her limits, hard and soft, and determine what level of submission and erotic power exchange is best suited for her. Many girls have never felt most of the tools and toys out there. Floggers vary is shape size weight and texture. Different types of ropes or clamps feel different. These types of things are what I focus on. Introducing someone to all the different fun activities of BDSM that they are curious about that I feel I know well enough to show them. Example I never single tail a newbie for 2 reasons, first I am not comfortable with my skill level to show this to someone for a first experience, second well it’s a bit of an ouch.

Formal:
First of there is no such thing as “formal training” There is no manual of standards out there. There is no outline of formality like the code of conduct in the military. There are what are referred to as “Formal” or “Old” house’s in Europe that have had a standard of protocol and etiquette since the 40’s but this is mostly made of leather scene protocol of the “Old Guard” (I’ll post on that topic in a few days). With that said, I also stated I am a self proclaimed formal trainer. So how can I train someone in something that doesn’t exist? I don’t I train someone is the foundation of my methods which is nothing more then a large group of community expectations both public and private. To that I have grouped together some Old Guard items as well as other historical and military protocols and etiquette. Why not just use strict old guard methods? Well I would really like to see a submissive female cup another submissive females testicals. :soapbox: :

Personal:
My personal training methods I’m not going to outline here to much as that would turn into 40 some odd pages of what I expect.

Aside from a few fundamental basics training is nothing more then learning the technical details of a dominant's expectations. So next time someone says they want to be trained, ask them what it means to them and set your expectations accordingly. But before you set out to train someone beyond and introductory level set your goals before you start training, know what you want and work towards them and adjust as you need. Training is never the same for ever person. If you’re a Dom understand what your training and the possible effects of what your doing. Training a girl to cum on command may sound nice but it’s a royal pain in the butt to train and is rather boring when accomplished. So really know what you want before you start training someone or ask to be trained yourself.

[Pandora's Box]

I see these in posts by sub's (some Dom's out there should say them too).

Ain't that the fuckin' truth.

[slavelucy]

Training a girl to cum on command may sound nice but it’s a royal pain in the butt to train and is rather boring when accomplished.

IYHO? ;)

You make some interesting distinctions between three types of training, which in the main i think are probably fairly accurate. The only note i would add would be that when a great, great many 'subs' say 'I want to be trained'...what they actually mean is 'I want to learn what it would mean to be trained' 'I want to learn more about BDSM'..or even 'I want a bit of subbie fun, and I'm trying to say the right words'....all fine, of course, but all potentially misleading. The only way to route out what they want, IMO, is in response to 'I want to be trained', is to ask 'Why?'. i also know for a fact that this can also be used as a tool to re-focus on submission. Works for me, anyway.

Oh, also, i'm going to be potentially controversial and say that i actually think the only training worth anything is the third one (and the first two are encompassed by that one)...i strongly believe that Ds only exists in a true and pure form between any two given people, not universally. A view that would make me very unpopular with most classicists in the BDSM world, i'm sure.



Ain't that the fuckin' truth.

Er..yes, never was a truer word spoken.

Interesting thread, Eraser. :)

sl

[Chuckdom19]

IYHO? ;)

You make some interesting distinctions between three types of training, which in the main i think are probably fairly accurate. The only note i would add would be that when a great, great many 'subs' say 'I want to be trained'...what they actually mean is 'I want to learn what it would mean to be trained' 'I want to learn more about BDSM'..or even 'I want a bit of subbie fun, and I'm trying to say the right words'....all fine, of course, but all potentially misleading. The only way to route out what they want, IMO, is in response to 'I want to be trained', is to ask 'Why?'. i also know for a fact that this can also be used as a tool to re-focus on submission. Works for me, anyway.

Oh, also, i'm going to be potentially controversial and say that i actually think the only training worth anything is the third one (and the first two are encompassed by that one)...i strongly believe that Ds only exists in a true and pure form between any two given people, not universally. A view that would make me very unpopular with most classicists in the BDSM world, i'm sure.
Er..yes, never was a truer word spoken.

Interesting thread, Eraser. :)

sl

I agree strongly with your "controversial" position (kneeling at the moment, right, slave?). And THAT'S an example. In a true Ds relationship, the sub should only respond to Sir's commands, not to every person who wanders by. The situation might be different if the relationship includes B&D or extreme humiliation; but a sub is only truly a sub to one person. While responses may be given to others, it is only at Sir's order, not on their own.

This isn't Gor, after all.

[Wontworry]

Training a girl to cum on command may sound nice but it’s a royal pain in the butt to train and is rather boring when accomplished.

er ... if you say so.

Personally I find it one hell of a turn on, particularly in the 'control' sense, that my sub cums within seconds of me telling her to ... but each to his own I guess.

[Lia]

er ... if you say so.

Personally I find it one hell of a turn on, particularly in the 'control' sense, that my sub cums within seconds of me telling her to ... but each to his own I guess.

While I find this idea facinating, I also wonder if it could possibly be true! How do you train a sub to cum on command? I know I take a while to get there, even on my good days. Any suggestions here are welcome and ENCOURAGED!!! :D

[Eraser]

Call me lazy.. but not going to quote each person


lucy: nothing ever humble about my opinions and nothing controversial about your. When I speak of cumming on command I am referring to single word near instant orgasms. Not orgasm control on a broader scope.

I also agree with you completely as to what is actually being said as opposed to the words used that was my point :)

as for the only training worth anything being the last and that being the only true form of Ds. On this point we totally disagree. How can a submissive even understand what she wants or enjoy's without experience? Did you marry the first guy you dated? Probably not, dating is relationship training its how you learn what you want in a mate. Ds training is learning what you want in a Dom.

On the last point again we disagree. There is no one way to Ds or BDSM so there can be NO true way. Also Ds is one on one even in a group the submission is between the Dominant and the submissive and she is submissive to his desires not a blanket submissive to any person that tells them what to do unless her Dominant deems it so. If he does then its still one on one in she still following command to do as other says. By your reference there could be no chain of command the military or middle managers int he corporate world etc etc.


Wontworry: well I'm glad you enjoy it, I've trained it in girls in the past and find the training wonderful but the final result boring. To each there own and glad you enjoy the control and headspace it gives you. More power to ya :)


Lia: yes, its true. I've trained it in 4 girls in the last 9 years with different stimulant response systems. As Wontworry said, the power of it is intoxicating, but in my experiences I find that fades quickly in time for both the sub and the Dom.


to all: Feel free to ask questions. Feel even more free to argue and disagree with me. My opinions and experiences are my own I share them simply to benefit others. Doesn't mean your wrong or I am wrong if we disagree.

[slavelucy]

Call me lazy..

Well, whatever does it for ya...lazy...;)


lucy: nothing ever humble about my opinions

Well, no offense, but maybe there should be something humble about them, because, the way the originally quoted line reads, one could be forgiven for thinking that you're making broad, sweeping statements for everyone...you think it's a real pain in the butt...you think it's boring...but that wasn't how you presented it, is all i'm saying. :)


When I speak of cumming on command I am referring to single word near instant orgasms. Not orgasm control on a broader scope.

i figured. :D

Right, on with the rest of the business...


Did you marry the first guy you dated?

No, but i didn't 'practice' marriage either! And that's my point, i don't believe you can be trained to be with someone, in any relationship, be it Ds or vanilla, i think you just get on and do it...and it part of that is training and learning, then fine. In fact, surely this very conversation demonstrates this. Me and you, though both great folks (heh!), don't share views on Ds...would it be feasible that i be trained by you? Of course not, that would be silly. In fact, you're right when you say there is no one way to do Ds...therefore, based on this lack of over-arching principles, logic does not follow that one can be trained in the stark way you propose.

As for my 'third' point, i think that was more chksng19's point, but either way, i didn't say or certainly didn't mean there was 'one way to do Ds'..in fact, i said or meant precisely the opposite, i said that it is based ON the very fact that there is no one way of doing it, that Ds works best between two given people and that is the only person to whom the submissive should answer to....this diversity IS the pure form. In fact, it is completely illogical, to me, to think any other...to be trained by someone else does not make them your dominant; a trainer, maybe, but not dominant.

sl

[Curtis]

No, but i didn't 'practice' marriage either! (snip)
...to be trained by someone else does not make them your dominant; a trainer, maybe, but not dominant.

I very much admire that last phrase, but I'd add the word 'necessarily' between 'not' and 'make'. Much of the BDSM fiction that I read off-line is based on that very concept (ie. someone who trains subs for others without becoming their Dom themself), so I relate to this as a logical and desirable phenomenon.

As for the first statement above, here in the U.S. we have an institution that sociologists are coming to call the 'starter' marriage, wherein one or both of the participants goes into it expecting it to be more of a learning experience than a 'forever' thing, hoping that they'll be able to get it right the second time. As I noted in an e-mail, this institution is a pretty thorough-going failure, since second marriages are MUCH more likely to fail than first ones are.

[Alaric's pet]

This has been an interesting thread to read and I appreciate the chance to think deeper on this subject. If I may, I'd like to respond to one of the first lines from Eraser:


What is being trained? What does it mean to be trained?

I find myself drawn to this idea although I haven't really expressed it to Alaric in those words. (or anyone else for that matter....it does sound pretty silly afterall) For me, "training" is almost a desire to be "forced" over the line from fantasizing and into reality. I know the things that I'd like to try....the things that make me crazy with desire when I read about them here in the forum....but I find it difficult at times to reconcile those feelings with the other roles I have to play. In my mind, a trainer would not let me make excuses or hide from what I physically desire. He would force me to confront (and embrace!) my inner fuck-slut. :exit:

[Wontworry]

While I find this idea facinating, I also wonder if it could possibly be true! How do you train a sub to cum on command? I know I take a while to get there, even on my good days. Any suggestions here are welcome and ENCOURAGED!!! :D

Hi Lia (welcome to the forums)

Please understand that when I say ‘cum on command’ I am not talking about Pavlov’s dog. I am (fairly) sure that if my sub was shopping in Tescos and I phoned her and said “cum” then she couldn’t do it instantly (although it might be fun finding out).

How we got to the point where she now cums within seconds of my command was fairly simple. Firstly, she is a very sexual girl and wishes/needs to cum frequently. Secondly, she loves my voice which is probably helped by the fact that I have an accent that she does not hear very often. Thirdly, we have a bond between us that is more than just Ds and this has helped immensely for something as personal as cumming on command.

When we first started to play, it wasn’t long before I recognised the point where she was teetering on the edge of an orgasm and I used that knowledge to either make her wait or to ensure she came very soon after I gave her permission. As we progressed she is now able to cum virtually when I say. Although I do not order her to cum when we aren’t in a scene, I have played with her in real life for a very short period (say a minute), then told her to cum and been truly proud that she has an orgasm almost instantly.

[Eraser]

Well, whatever does it for ya...lazy...;)

oh you know me better then that! its suppose to be lazy wanker sheesh...



Well, no offense, but maybe there should be something humble about them, because, the way the originally quoted line reads, one could be forgiven for thinking that you're making broad, sweeping statements for everyone...you think it's a real pain in the butt...you think it's boring...but that wasn't how you presented it, is all i'm saying. :)

well as far as I am concerned it my post on my own initiated thread. The only one I ever speak for are my own opinions. I don't hold any broad reaching position like moderator or the like to make a sweeping statment. So yes the thoughts and opinions here are my own. I guess I'm just not overly politically correct in making sure I specify that statements I make are my own. Those that normally offended by statements made by someone to be assumed to a larger scale are... wait that would be a broad statement... never mind :)




No, but i didn't 'practice' marriage either!

no but you did learn from dating how to pick the partner that most suited your liking.






therefore, based on this lack of over-arching principles, logic does not follow that one can be trained in the stark way you propose.

well if your referring to 'one' as yourself. I agree we are not compatible at all on that front. But if you using in a royal sense, then again we disagree. I've trained more then my fair share of girls. I also have taken on girls for short periods of time to train specific task for other owners that did not have the specific skill to train them in a particular manner or tool or method. But there there are many that have benefited greatly from training under me.




to be trained by someone else does not make them your dominant; a trainer, maybe, but not dominant.

doesn't effect my dominance over them it does effect if I am THEIR Dom or not correct?
I also stated in the start of my post "a self proclaimed formal trainer" and when I train someone I am refereed to as such NEVER as Master.




The entire point of my post was dual purpose. If your a submissive and you say/ask to be trained please understand what you are asking for. If your Dom and you hear these words, understand the possibilities of what a person is asking for, in addition don't go running around looking at a thousand website for the "correct" or "true" or "one" training method. There isn't one, you have to develop your own based on what you want. Training without a goal is pointless. Then its not training. then its playing.

[slavelucy]

oh you know me better then that! its suppose to be lazy wanker sheesh...

LOL! Ohhhh, yeah, sorry, that's quite remiss of me....although, i thought you preferred..naughty wanker...?*grins*



well as far as I am concerned it my post on my own initiated thread. The only one I ever speak for are my own opinions. I don't hold any broad reaching position like moderator or the like to make a sweeping statment. So yes the thoughts and opinions here are my own. I guess I'm just not overly politically correct in making sure I specify that statements I make are my own.

At the risk of flogging a dead horse (i can't be arsed finding the dead horse icon!)....i only meant the one line in which you said one particular thing was a royal pain in the butt and was boring...it wasn't from a mod POV that it didn't sit easily with me, but from a...*thinks*..person POV.



no but you did learn from dating how to pick the partner that most suited your liking.

*chuckles inwardly* (not at you, Eraser)...well, sure i did, but i was merely implying that the analogy was a weak one, because in a Ds relationship, the training kinda IS a big part of the relationship and i don't think the two are all that comparable. If you were talking about conversing with other dominants, getting to know more about the lifestyle etc, then i would whole heartedly agree that it's only through knowing other dominants and/or submissive that one comes to realise how individual a Ds relationship is...but you wern't talking about merely conversing with other people, you were talking specifically about training.



well if your referring to 'one' as yourself. I agree we are not compatible at all on that front. But if you using in a royal sense, then again we disagree.

LOL! i was using 'one' as i always use it on these forums, in an effort not to personalize, perhaps i'm being overly English..tut tut, sheesh, i'll be calling people a wanker left, right and centre in a minute! Somebody STOP me!! Ahem, anyway, yes, on this point we do totally disagree and there is no reconciling that. i still believe that it is the diversity of Ds that dictates that 'cold' or 'uninvolved' training (particularly in the example you give, when training submissives in a skill for another dominant) inherantly means that you're not having a Ds relationship with them, you're training them.


doesn't effect my dominance over them it does effect if I am THEIR Dom or not correct?

If i have understood your question correctly, then yes, correct, which is pretty much what i said...and this is possibly the crux of where we differ...the one thing i dislike and which hugely turns me off (in the broadest sense) about BDSM, is the notion that i should submit to anyone other than my own Dom...and hence, if someone was not my Dom, i could not and indeed would not be 'doing' Ds with them.


The entire point of my post was dual purpose. If your a submissive and you say/ask to be trained please understand what you are asking for. If your Dom and you hear these words, understand the possibilities of what a person is asking for, in addition don't go running around looking at a thousand website for the "correct" or "true" or "one" training method.

Oh, on this point we agree, in fact, on what not to do, i think we very much agree, on the individuality of Ds, we also agree....but on the consequences of that individuality, we remain divided. :)

sl

[Eraser]

i was merely implying that the analogy was a weak one
actually the analogy is a fundemental of adolecent psychology.



because in a Ds relationship, the training kinda IS a big part of the relationship and i don't think the two are all that comparable.

yes training is a big part of the relationship. But there are smaller portions of a D\s relationship that don't need to be experianced with the "one"



If you were talking about conversing with other dominants, getting to know more about the lifestyle etc, then i would whole heartedly agree that it's only through knowing other dominants and/or submissive that one comes to realise how individual a Ds relationship is...but you wern't talking about merely conversing with other people, you were talking specifically about training.

I think the big differance here is you are monogomous and I am polyamorus. I do agree with you that just because a sub is a sub she should be listening to ever guy that comes along. I do thing in a D\s social setting respect should be kept, as you are a representation of your owner. If you are rude etc then
that reflects negativly on your owner. Now if your owner dislikes the person I say be as much of a bitch as you want.




inherantly means that you're not having a Ds relationship with them, you're training them.

this is splitting hairs to me. I'm not having a D\s relationship in the Master slave they are owned by me sense your correct.


where we differ...the one thing i dislike and which hugely turns me off (in the broadest sense) about BDSM, is the notion that i should submit to anyone other than my own Dom...

additionally I have no problem with one of my girls scene with another Dom but though he may be the physicality behind the actions, her submission is still to me and my desires. I directed her to do so hence that is why. This entire concept of doing as any Dom says is an IRCism or online thing. Even if you look back to Old guard. You pay respect but you do not follow the commands of another Master unless your own Master has instructed you to do so.

I really don't think were that far off base of each other, as I do view the trainer/charge relationship different then I view the Master/slave relationship. But I Do think many new people learn some good things from trainers that prepare them for better relationships.

[slavelucy]

actually the analogy is a fundemental of adolecent psychology.

Um..i wasn't referring to adolescent psychology, i was referring to the analogy as you used it, which was in specific relation to Ds. i am aware of the concept of adolescent socialization, i just don't think the analogy is wholly appropriate in adult Ds relationships.


yes training is a big part of the relationship. But there are smaller portions of a D\s relationship that don't need to be experianced with the "one"

But..wasn't it the training and not the 'smaller parts' that you were referring to?



I think the big differance here is you are monogomous *smiles inwardly* You're not wholly correct in that assumption, but that's not important and i take your point. i wouldn't want to be trained by someone else and then passed back to my Dom, no. Ds, for me, is a relationship, not school.


I do agree with you that just because a sub is a sub she should be listening to ever guy that comes along. I do thing in a D\s social setting respect should be kept, as you are a representation of your owner. If you are rude etc then that reflects negativly on your owner.

*raises an eyebrow* Eraser, if i am inappropriately rude or offensive to someone then it reflects badly on me, lucy. It would only reflect badly on my dominant insofar as he had failed to actively encourage me both to express myself politely and the positives of doing so. Granted, at a BDSM event i would be more likely to keep my mouth shut on certain issues for a few hours, but if anyone (dominant, submissive, whoever) asked my opinion on something, i would happily respectfully give it, just as i would here.



I really don't think were that far off base of each other, as I do view the trainer/charge relationship different then I view the Master/slave relationship. But I Do think many new people learn some good things from trainers that prepare them for better relationships.

...and i don't. i think that people learn from Ds experiences with other people, just like they do with vanilla ones, in fact, just like they do with life, in general, and it is natural that every single relationship, conversation, encounter would change them slightly...but trained for another person? No. This is probably because my own dominant would be highly unlikely to want me to be trained by someone else, the reason for which is essentially two-pronged: Firstly, it's quite likely that the training wouldn't be to his taste and he'd end up having to do it all over again anyway, and secondly, well..he'd rather do it himself, that is the point in our being involved, afterall.

i agree, however, that the one point we are agreed on is that training does not equate to a Master/slave relationship, as i said before, it's only what comes after that on which we remain in disagreement.

sl

[Lord Douche]

Okay, this thread is pretty big and fat, so I'll be brief.

Firstly, I believe that being trained as a sub is not the same as being taught to do woodwork, or to learn proper english. I believe that Ds is part of a relationship, and to treat it the way you would a TAFE course is to invite trouble.
This matter of training someone elses sub just doesn't fit with me... why would you base a relationship on Ds, and then outsource your subs training? You pay someone to teach you how to use a computer, not to learn submission. This seems to be totally illogical, because whilst your sub will be learning, you as the dominant will learn nothing, all alone at home. Should a Ds relationship not be about mutual learning? Should you not be practicing Ds together, rather than apart? Why bother with a relationship at all, if you're not?!

And more to answer the original post, I believe that being "trained" as a submissive should be something that develops as part of a relationship. If people are hunting for a lifestyle involving Ds, or to understand what submission entails, then I don't believe that being trained into what one person considers to be a submissive (be that a doormat or a firey wench secretly craving a spanking) is the best way to go. Rather, they should learn through forging a relationship with someone, and one that is personal, instead of simply "business".
LD

[Curtis]

Okay, I'm in on the other side. In a situation where both sub and dom are novices, I think it completely reasonable that the sub might be trained by a more experienced dom, then returned to train in turn their dom.

Alternatively, the two novices could be trained simultaneously, but I do think the dom should be trained by a sub. If you were a quarterback (American football), wouldn't it be better to be trained by a receiver than by another quarterback? Or a pitcher trained by a catcher? You have to learn how to please the one you're going to be interacting with more than you have to learn how to please your peers. (And remember, relevant to this, that there's a difference between being trained and exchanging tips.)

[Dngnkeeper]

Yes and deedy a fat thread. Ill try to be brief too.

Reading through the thread it seems to me the differences come down to where you put the quotes in ' "trained" as a submissive ' from LD's post.

For ' "trained" as a submissive ' the key word is trained, for me this phrase means learning some some physical aspect that can be used as part and parcel of their submission. An example form my history would be a person interested in corsets and deportment training, and not part of a relationship, who seeks out this type of training for personal reasons and future use in a relationship. Or the submissive who in a relationship seeks out someone to train them in the Japanese tea ceremony to as a gift for their Dom. This would fall in the category of teacher and student and the learning of the "business", to use a theatre term.

If you move the quotes so you have ' "trained as a submissive" ' you have something else entirely. Here submissive becomes the key word and for my money this is done between the Dom and sub, or group in poly relationships. As this, for me, is something of an individual experience, unique to the people, time and place. An example would be an experienced sub entering a new relationship. While they have been trained by others our relationship is different then what went before and unique to us. Additional training would required.

I feel we have seen some good discussion on both here.

Thanks LD for the visual in your post that got me thinking on this and the good words from all the rest that helped flush it out.

[Eraser]

well since this is getting lengthy and I obviously need to be more clear. I will make a few more broad general statements to explain what I meant. The point of my post was not if a person should/could be trained separate from there relationship with there Dom.

My point was that there many sub out there that ask for training including a number of them asking for formal training, not ownership not a Master but just training. Don't look at it as training so much as just experience. If your looking for a temporary Dom to teach you a few things or just to play and fun don't call it training. Training has a goal and a purpose normally inclined to either a specific sub-culture (gorean) or a particular fetish (pony play) and of course just a particular Dom's personal desires.

Training outside of an owner based relationship to me is little more then experiencing particular types of play and finding out what you like and don't like.

I also get asked alot by Dom's for a Formal training methods, like an outline or a document or books etc. There isn't one, there isn't one method. The method needs to be your own and match that of your sub and your desires and goals. Training is a method and a system to get certain responses and can have deep rooted psychological methods that can produce dramatic results, but the methods are particular to you and yours.


As a Dom learn your tools well, understand and be careful with them. Learn how they feel, how your sub reacts to them, how hard and how soft to use them. Learn the physical ramifications of different types of play, like tissue damage from leaving rope on to long, or damaging the breast from hitting them to hard.


Last thing, couple people ask me about the testical comment its from Butchmann/Old Guard "Formal" training:

Greeting slave brothers. Other slave brothers may be greeted after all have finished presenting . A slave should greet slave brothers at Butchmann's , at least when first seeing them each day, by hugging them with the left hand around the back and the right hand cupping the other slave's balls. This may be modified if one or the other is in restraints.

[slavelucy]

For ' "trained" as a submissive ' the key word is trained, for me this phrase means learning some some physical aspect that can be used as part and parcel of their submission. An example form my history would be a person interested in corsets and deportment training, and not part of a relationship, who seeks out this type of training for personal reasons and future use in a relationship. Or the submissive who in a relationship seeks out someone to train them in the Japanese tea ceremony to as a gift for their Dom. This would fall in the category of teacher and student and the learning of the "business", to use a theatre term.

If you move the quotes so you have ' "trained as a submissive" ' you have something else entirely. Here submissive becomes the key word and for my money this is done between the Dom and sub, or group in poly relationships. As this, for me, is something of an individual experience, unique to the people, time and place. An example would be an experienced sub entering a new relationship. While they have been trained by others our relationship is different then what went before and unique to us. Additional training would required.

What an inciteful point, DngnKeeper. And i think you're right. Certainly i wouldn't have a problem learning one particular physical thing with someone else for my Dom, because technically, i'd still be doing Ds with my Dom, not A.N.Other. i also don't have a problem with getting to know other people a bit and finding one's feet that way...but it's this whole notion of stable fulls of subs, training under someone in preperation for someone else...that's not Ds and i just don't get it.

sl

[SirW]

What an inciteful point, DngnKeeper. And i think you're right. Certainly i wouldn't have a problem learning one particular physical thing with someone else for my Dom, because technically, i'd still be doing Ds with my Dom, not A.N.Other. i also don't have a problem with getting to know other people a bit and finding one's feet that way...but it's this whole notion of stable fulls of subs, training under someone in preperation for someone else...that's not Ds and i just don't get it.

sl

sl, you are absolutely on point with your observation. D/s is so much dependent on emotions and feelings and the interaction between the Dominant and submissive. While you can train someone in a task, or to learn a skill, you can not train them in how they feel toward a Dominant or how they interact with that Dominant. This is what the relationship journey is all about. Discovering new things (even things that you have done 100 times with others, are new again with a new submissive).
So if someone asked me to be "trained" I would clarify what they wished to know. As ssaid above, if they wished to learn how to flog or some skill that can be taught. But training as a submissive needs a relationship- deep, personal and committed. So much of the relationship is learning to trust and developing that trust through experiences. This is not "training" but is the journey of the D/s relationship.

Don't know if my 3 cents helps, but too often I hear people say or I read that a Dominant needs to train a submissive to do this or behave like that. What the Dominant really needs to do is be deep within their submissives' soul, so the two can learn to be "One". That can not be trained but is only felt.


SirW

[Chuckdom19]

(snip)
Don't know if my 3 cents helps, but too often I hear people say or I read that a Dominant needs to train a submissive to do this or behave like that. What the Dominant really needs to do is be deep within their submissives' soul, so the two can learn to be "One". That can not be trained but is only felt.
SirW

I think you both have been spot on with these observations. If you're only 'surface training', as you state, SirW, only a skill is taught. A lifestyle goes much deeper, on both parties' sides. D/s is an emotional tie between two.

BDSM, however, doesn't have to be. A slave can be taught to be slave to anyone; the attitude is only on one side, there.
chksng

[yellowrose]

But training as a submissive needs a relationship- deep, personal and committed. So much of the relationship is learning to trust and developing that trust through experiences. This is not "training" but is the journey of the D/s relationship.

Very well said. I have found that many doms out there want to "train" me without a clue of who I am or what I need. I have no idea what they want or need either. Everyone seems to be in such a rush to dive right into a D/s relationship (or any type of relationship) without taking the time to discover each other first.

Why would a sub want just anyone training them or a dom be willing to train just anyone? Seems to me that a connection must be built first before any talk of training can even be brought up.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

While it is quite simple to ask the question "Why would someone want to train in DS without having a relationship first?", the answers are not always so simple. The fact remains, however, that a lot of people are far more comfortable "training" in an impersonal, objective, more clinical environment. Why? Because some people are not looking for realtionships; they are looking to learn to be dominant or submissive without the extra added baggage of forming a lengthy relationship or emotional connection.

"What's the point of this?" you ask? Well, there are many points to it. Mentoring, that is training in a non-relationship, non-emotional setting, is an excellent way for someone to learn the skills expected of them, or required of them, in order to further their personal level of experience, gain knowledge on subjects or skills about which they do not know or understand, and to learn certain practices and experiences for a more experienced partner in a "safe" and objective setting.

So, what does all that mean, then? It means a lot of things, really. It means that a person, dominant or submissive, it doesn't matter, can be taught by another dominant or submissive (dominant teaching dominant, submissive teaching submissive) what a potential owner might expect of them, what a potential DS partner might require them to do, or basic skills that a DS partner should know before entering into a relationship. Training also allows for the dominant or submissive to learn how to use certain types of equipment safely, assume certain positions flawlessly and without thinking, build confidence to give an order and stand by it even in situations where the submissive partner may be somewhat reticent, and/or for a submissive to experience certain types of situations, mundane, painful or servile, so she is prepared for her role in a DS relationship, when she so chooses to enter into one.

"Yeah, fine, but I want to train my own submissive." Okay. Go ahead. No one is stopping you. Obviously, by reading the responses in this thread, training isn't for everyone. Or rather, some people assume it isn't for them. When a person can look at their DS training and realize that it can prepare them for future relationships and events, it makes sense that it can be done, and likely should be done. Much for the same reasons that a mechanic goes to trade school or works on cars for years before actually becoming a licensed mechanic; to learn the skills necessary for the trade before getting the actual job. The same goes for DS training. A submissive, for example, can be trained by a dominant or another submissive in some very basic things, like how to kneel properly, how to sit properly, how to properly serve tea, or coffee, or food, without the trappings of a serious relationship, or sex, or comitment. A mentor can just be a person that another person that is interested in DS visits to begin his or her learning until he or she can get into a confortable DS relationship of their own. In fact, having a mentor can make DS more comfortable for people that don't quite understand all the elements of it, again without the pressure of being in a comitted relationship, assuming sexual contact will happen, or with the "expectation" of being pleasing to a partner even if the training isn't coming along quite like they wanted.

Being taught objectively can have some great benefits. The teacher can objectively offer, monitor and enforce expected training activities without their judgement being clouded by emotional response, and without leniency. The subject can objectively receive strict training while maintaining chastity and fidelity (if the training is at the request of another, possibly more experienced, partner), without worrying that they are displeasing to their partner, and while receiving strict, consistent and unwavering discipline.

Many more experienced dominants will often suggest that their potential submissive partners that are inexperienced receive some kind of training from an objective mentor (almost exclusively this is someone known and trusted by the dominant partner) in order to slowly and comfortably bring the inexperienced partner's level of experience and understanding up to a level where the more experienced dominant partner may work with the inexperienced submissive partner without frustration, or the uncertainty of inadvertently piling too much experience, discipline and knowledge all onto the inexperienced submissive too quickly.

"But won't that mean I might not be learning what my dominant wants me to learn? Won't I instead be learning what the mentor teaches me?" Not necessarily. If the dominant partner knows the mentor, he can give certain instructions to the mentor for certain types of training or specific activities to be taught. If the inexperienced partner is the submissive, and this is most often the case, then the mentor might not even be another dominant. Many dominants are content to allow a submissive to train their submissive partners. In the case that a dominant wishes to be mentored, the mentor is almost exclusively another dominant.

The instances of dominants mentoring other dominants are not all that uncommon. Many dominants in BDSM/kink/leather communities learn from watching, assisting, or learning directly from other dominants within their community. In fact, in the sense of SSC relationships, it's probably better that a dominant does learn from someone that knows what their doing, rather than trying to learn everything on their own. It is irresponsible for a dominant to assume that, just because they are dominant, that they know the ins and outs of all the equipment available to them. Certainly, a TENS unit comes with an instruction manual, but I wouldn't want to use one unless I knew someone that could show me how to use it first. When dealing with something that could be potentially lethal to my submissive partner, I'd want every bit of knowledge I could garner firsthand before even considering making an attempt. The same could easily be said for a variety of things: fire play, asphyxia, needles, injections, cupping, enemas, and a whole host of other fetishes and kinks could be better taught by a mentoring individual than they could by a book.

So, why would someone want to "train" in DS without having a relationship first? Why wouldn't they want to? For the most part, it can't hurt. It could even make a person a better dominant or submissive for their eventual partner, when that day comes.

[Curtis]

This is very well put and well argued, but I still believe that if I ever start doing D/s in real life, I'd much rather be trained by an experienced sub than by a Dom/me. It seems to me that there're going to be a lot fewer ego clashes between a Dom and a sub than there will be between two Doms.

Think about real life situations. If you receive a promotion, and your new position comes with a secretary (sorry, administrative assistant), wouldn't you rather learn the job from the secretary who's staying on than from the person you're replacing? Or, in the military, as the new officer transferring in, wouldn't you rather get advice from your top sergeant than from another officer? In medieval times, who was the best person to train the prince? Not the king, the prime minister.

Of course you still have to pay attention to your own common sense (keeping that 'grain of salt' handy), and learning from another neophyte is out of the question. I guess what gives me the most trouble is the intellectual disconnect: Unless you're going to be topping other Doms, why would you learn to top FROM a Dom? It just doesn't compute. :dunno:

On the other hand, learning from a switch (of the gender you're learning to top) might be the best situation of all, since s/he's familiar with both sides of the whip. :idea:

[BDSM_Tourguide]

Unless you're going to be topping other Doms, why would you learn to top FROM a Dom? It just doesn't compute.


It computes just fine for me. A dominant mentoring another dominant is traditionally the way it's done anyway. Besides, if you need to know how to tie a knot, are you going to ask the person that ties the knot, or the person that has the knot tied on them?

I'd suggest and even encourage inexperienced dominants to mentor under more experienced dominant. Especially in real life situations where the pain is real, the damage is real, and the people are real.

It also has nothing to do with ego. It's just the passing of knowledge from one person to the next in an objective sense. Back in the dark ages before the internet and before widely published "how to" books about BDSM, mentoring was almost exclusively the way people learned in the lifestyle. Well, back then, I don't even think it was a lifestyle yet.

And while I might want to learn field operations from the Master Sergeant, I want to learn base operations from the Captain posted there. In the same way, I'd rather learn how to use a TENS unit from a person with lots of experience using one, not from a person that spends 90% of the time blindfolded, gaggd and bound while it's used on her.

[Dngnkeeper]

It computes just fine for me. A dominant mentoring another dominant is traditionally the way it's done anyway. Besides, if you need to know how to tie a knot, are you going to ask the person that ties the knot, or the person that has the knot tied on them?.
Very true. But if you want to learn the effect the knot has then you need to ask the one in it. One of the things I was reminded of recently is that even is I have experienced the thing I am doing, my perceptions are only one of the many perceptions that can exist. I recently had the opportunity to introduce several submissives from a lesbian household, that is primarily into service, to the flogger. One of the newer girls had wanted to experience flogging but felt uneasy with a full on flogging scene. We ended up with more of a demo where I would use different floggers and techniques with each and she would tell me how each felt and her reaction. I learned a lot that day. And so did her Mistress, who now owns a couple of floggers. So while the submissive didn't add to the training of "how to flog", she added to my knowledge of what the reactions to flogging are. While this information is something I get when talking after a scene, it is not usually expressed in this detail.

I'd suggest and even encourage inexperienced dominants to mentor under more experienced dominant. Especially in real life situations where the pain is real, the damage is real, and the people are real..
Totally agree. If nothing else in the name of safety.

It also has nothing to do with ego. It's just the passing of knowledge from one person to the next in an objective sense. Back in the dark ages before the internet and before widely published "how to" books about BDSM, mentoring was almost exclusively the way people learned in the lifestyle. Well, back then, I don't even think it was a lifestyle yet.
Dark Ages!!! :eek: Oh you mean the days before SSC was a phrase and, what today is known as, RAK was the norm. Yes that was how it was done. It also included a lot of networking, checking of references, long interviews, the need for complete secrecy, and much direct observation and mentoring for both sides. Along with the cardinal rule for self preservation, never go to a scene alone. And yes there were some lifestyle and 24/7 folks even back then. :cool:

[Curtis]

ALSO well argued! But, for those of us who don't know, what does 'RAK' stand for?

[BDSM_Tourguide]

RAK = Risk-Aware Kink

RACK = Risk-Aware Consensual Kink

[Curtis]

Thank you. I'm assuming it applies mostly to edge-play?

[BDSM_Tourguide]

Thank you. I'm assuming it applies mostly to edge-play?


No. It's the new replacement acronym for SSC. It implies that players are aware that what they do is risky, but they are aware of it and consent to it.

[Eraser]

Thanx TG for the addition to the post, I've been rather swamped with holidays and personal issues.

http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2482