"I want to be trained"

[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