Quote Originally Posted by BDSM_Tourguide

I consider myself a dominant, but by Dslave's reasoning, I should consider myself a master. By my definitions, I am not, though.


I hope it's ok for me to add to this thread, although it seems kind of like an old topic. And I hope that maybe I can help Dslave clarify her point a little bit and maybe put some closure between her and TG's arguement... and I hope that I am not "taking away from the experience" as TG said...

Please correct me if I'm wrong Dslave, but my interpretation or understanding of what you are saying is that ur reasoning isn't unconditionally calling all those who have that experience a "Master." It seems like what you're trying to say that the level of experience or commitment should be a standard that those aspiring to the term "Master" should find themselves at, if not exceeding. It doesn't really matter what a person calls themselves, be it dominant or master. But a person considering using the term "Master" should understand the amount of experience and commitment involved.

If it all amounts to experience, then I have plenty. If my BDSM experience were compared, in years, to a prison term, I'd have served the max for manslaughter by now. That would, by the terms laid down by Dslave, force me to be a master.
Nobody should be able to force the term master or dominant, it should be a personal preference. But, TG, what I think Dslave is trying to say, is you could consider or call yourself a "Master" based on the amount of experience and/or commitment you have, not that you must be a Master because of that experience. You shouldn't consider yourself a master if you're lacking in that experience and/or commitment, and you should definitely not consider yourself a master based completely on the amount of control you place over your slave(subbie?) .

However, if one were to go by my definitions, than I am a dominant. Not because I lack any serious commitment to the lifestyle, nor because I lack practical experience, but because the style of relationship I want is not in fitting with the generally accepted terminology of the MS relationship. In my view, it has nothing to do with commitment, it's based on preference of the type of relationship you want.
I agree with what both TG and Dslave is saying, but to varying degrees. I think a "Master" doesn't necessarrily have to control everything they're slave does, although some of those signs should definitely be there. It doesn't necessarily have to be only a type of relationship. And I truly think that Dslave is trying to set a standard for those who want to call themselves a "Master," not saying that those who meet that standard or exceed it are required to call themselves "Master." Why can't the distinction be a blend of both? I hope that helped.

Ps I just stumbled on this thread looking for clarifications like this, mostly on "this" versus "that." I hope it was ok to add my 2 cents and please forgive me if I've stepped on anyone's toes.