inherent responsibility

In a recent correspondence with a submissive friend, I was asked an interesting question:

The question:

Could a man, who says he is an experienced Dom and looking for a submissive to train and serve, be truly comfortable with himself if he also needs the relationship to be discreet, sexually friendly, and without responsibility.

My answer:

There does appear to be a contradiction inherent in what he may be seeking. I can understand a friendly, sexual, exploration of D/s. And I believe we are all capable of defining the boundaries of the relationships we build between people.

However.

Friendly exploration and finding a submissive to /train/ and /serve/ are not particularly compatible. Those terms cannot be spoken of without there being responsibility – it is inherent in the very nature of such concepts. You do not train someone without then being at least partially responsible for what happens next. We're not speaking of a playful scene amongst friends. We're speaking of an agreement between two thinking, feeling, entities, where ones taking on the responsibility to shape the other in a direct and possibly lasting fashion.

Of course, as I spoke of earlier, I dislike letting anyone dictate what is and is not possible. If such an arrangement appeals to you, there may be a way to create an enjoyable partnership with the Dom – but in truth, it sounds to me as if he is someone who wants to play at being at Dom without assuming the full mantle of responsibility that comes with it (perhaps due to an aversion to commitment, perhaps due to his relationship status that requires he be discreet).

Thoughts?

5 thoughts on “inherent responsibility”

  1. For those of us who like our sex and D/s more cerebral, I think such a situation would not be likely to satisfy. On the other hand, Holly at The Pervocracy seems to manage the friendly / no-responsibility combination just fine.

  2. It’s the “without responsibility” piece that raises my eyebrow. Firstly, what does it mean, within this context? There isn’t enough information … does it mean: without commitment? Or does it mean that the Dom will not take responsibility for any potential emotional harm or physical distress experienced by the sub, under his tutelage? I wouldn’t enter into that sort of D/s relationship, myself. But that’s me. It doesn’t speak to what I, as a sub, would need or desire from a Dom.

    Also, the way the query is phrased raises questions: “could a man … be truly comfortable with himself …” What is she asking here? Is she asking if you think he’s a genuine Dom? Is she asking if it’s possible for a Dom to be inherently at ease with his Dominant self, if he doesn’t want that responsibility? But does not wanting that responsibility necessarily mean that he’s *uncomfortable* with himself — or just not a genuine Dom? Or something else?

    I’m curious to know what others’ say …

  3. Its not possible to want to actively find a submissive to train and serve and yet wish to be discreet, sexually friendly, and without responsibility.

    Let me clarify. It is possible to actively seek and train a submissive while being discreet. That is more than possible. Many couples do this consistantly. Everyone around them may be completely oblivious to their type of relationship.

    However, it is the sexually friendly and the without responsibility that trips me up. A dominant BY NATURE is going to be responsible of the submissive who is trained by him, and who serves him. I truly believe this is what is wrong with a lot of men who think they are dominants, and make the D/s lifestyle look abusive.

    And finally, sexually friendly? I apologize, but if you are gonna tie me down (essentially putting my life in your hands) Id hope to god we are past the friendship part…..

  4. “sexually friendly, without responsiblity” ? Then no, that is NOT a dominant in my books – because being a dom is ALL about responsibility – not that I advocate subs NOT taking resposnibilty but a D/s dynamic is just THAT – it means both parties are involved, take repsonsibility and develop a rather intense, complicated and intimate relationship.

    A “top” has friendly play and perhaps – if the submissive is agreeable, sexually friendly and without responsiblity – but that does not make that person a dom .. and a top “scenes” – does not (to my mind) train and have someone ‘serve’ him (or at least only in the shallowest sense).

    Looks to me like someone wants to play – which is fine, but be HONEST about it – say you want to play at being a dom if you wil play at being my sub and THEN the submissive should CLEARLY delinate limits –

    just my opinion.

    sounds like a con to me.

  5. Being dominant is nothing but responsibility incarnate.

    Sexually friendly?
    *snort with mirth*

    One day, people will realize being dominant is not synonymous with being kinky.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.