"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!!!

[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.

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.

[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.

[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!!!

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.