LordEl

I recently read a CM profile that asserted that every person on CM was "futilely trying to avoid heartache." Dismissing the notion that everyone anywhere can be lumped into any category, the person who wrote that theory makes a good point about many of those who enter into slave contracts and some of those who enter into long term BDSM relationships. That said, that's the intent of most people entering into marriage. After all, don't they promise to love, honor and obey till death do them part. Nevertheless, roughly 50% of all marriages end in divorce and 70% of those who have been married will divorce at some point. Thus, neither BDSM relationships nor vanilla relationships can be certain to survive.

On a more personal note, I've "owned" a number of slaves during my many years in the scene. To the best of my knowledge, at least three of those I've owned are still living but are no longer my possessions. Each ended in different ways but each was painful and sad. I am confident that each of my former slaves are far better people today than they were when we met but none became as complete as I would have hoped. It takes a significant investment of time, effort and energy to train a slave in all the ways she needs to be trained, which includes making her the best person she is capable of becoming. It is that goal that takes the most effort and cooperation and takes the longest. One of my slaves was in training for nearly 20 years. It takes time. It is for that reason that it makes little sense to take on a slave that is too old, too set in her ways or who is convinced she already knows how to be all she can and should be.

All the above in mind, I don't delude myself that any relationship into which I'll enter will last forever. It would be wonderful if it lasted the remainder of my time on this plane but, realistically, it will last as long as it lasts. I hope to find a partner that will become all she can be under my training and tutelage but I know any slave I take on will leave me a far better slave and person than she was when W/we met. That is a great deal to offer and perhaps it will be enough to last a lifetime.      

Despite the host of those that claim to be Doms or Masters, the role, like a Masters Degree one earns from a University requires knowledge. The primary knowledge it requires is an understanding of how and why the endorphin release that produces subspace can best be safely created, sustained and managed before, during and after it is created. Without that knowledge fulfilling BDSM activity is largely left to chance. It isn't about looks or love and it isn't an accidental occurrence, it is about knowledge and trust born of the awareness that a Dom or Master knows His role and the responsibilities that accompany that role.

 Whenever I visit this site I find profile after profile that express the preferences of the self-proclaimed sub or slave, as though those preferences had anything to do with the ability of a Dom or Master to successfully perform His role. Age, looks, color and the many other traits called for in the profiles of these individuals are relevant to the vanilla desires of those who create them, but have almost nothing to do with the dynamics of the BDSM experience or how well a Dom or Master can create the much sought subspace experience. It is much like suggesting that the age, looks or color of a vibrator affect its ability to create an orgasm. If a vibrator can produce an orgasm, any well functioning vibrator will do the job. Some may be faster, some slower but it is the vibration that does the job, not the person wielding it. Some may prefer a phallic vibrator, some a Magic Wand-type, some a smaller "pocket rocket" type, but it isn't the hand holding the vibrator that does the job. Certainly a knowledgeable hand guiding the vibrator will interpret the responses of the person to whom it is being applied better than an inexperienced hand, but the age, looks or color of the vibrator doesn't significantly affect its effectiveness. As a side note, it is believed that Cleopatra used a box filled with bees as her vibrator.

Honesty, most would agree, is an important part of BDSM. Since trust is an important part of the scene, there is little doubt that is true. Honesty starts with being honest with oneself. sub and slaves would be far better off and far more honest if they realized that whatever preferences they express regarding age, looks, color or many other traits may be relevant to the vanilla interaction between Dom and sub or Master and slave but an inexperienced sub or slave is safer and more likely to be fulfilled by a knowledgeable and experienced Dom or Master than a less experienced one. If she seeks a vanilla relationship, vanilla factors may be valid considerations but if she wishes to discover the depth and fulfillment BDSM can yield, knowledge and experience are the key, not vanilla factors.       

A few days ago I read the profile of a self-declared submissive who complained about a male who had written to her claiming the reason women should be submissive to men was that men are superior to women. Apparently, she challenged his claim, so he blocked her. I found the chain of events she reported interesting because both had understandable positions for their respective actions. She was right in her position, but not her challenge. He was within his rights to block her, since she obviously wasn't the kind of submissive he was seeking, making further exchanges pointless.

What I found intriguing was that she did such a poor job of defending her objection to his assertion. This set me to thinking about my own attitudes toward the equality of men and women. I won't cite the member's handle here, as it would serve no purpose, but I wrote to her to clarify the status of men and women in the world of D/s, to which she hasn't responded. In my note I used the example of Apples and Oranges, observing that neither is superior, but they are different and thus incomparable in the literal sense of that term. All analogies limp at some point but I have since come to recognize that Apples and Oranges has more applicability than previously noted. Apples become superior to Oranges when one is selected over the other. the act of selecting it makes it superior for the selector, if only in that instance. Much the same is true of a Dominant selecting a submissive: being selected elevates her above other submissives but it cannot elevate her above him. Likewise, her selection of him elevates him above other men, perhaps even other Dominants, if only in that instance. The deciding factor is that in the ways that are important in the world in which we live the traits that make males male are dominant over the traits that make females female, though both are nearly indispensable. I know of no culture in the world where women are dominant over men, even when women out number men by significant numbers. This is not true in all the animal kingdom, but it is true in mammals. There may be only one adult male in a pride of lions, but regardless of how many females are in the pride, there is only one Alpha male. Contenders may arise but if they cannot defeat the Alpha male, they must leave the pride and start their own if they wish to be Dominant. We have, in theory, become more civilized as humans. We co-exist with many other Alpha males, we generally skip the confrontation, but the core principle remains. females are submissive to Dominant males who are bold enough to recognize their dominance, declare it and defend it.

None of this makes males superior to females but it is part of the male role to be Dominant. Males as a group are stronger than females; the strongest male will always be stronger than the strongest female. Women as a group are more nurturing; the most nurturing female will always be more nurturing than the most nurturing male. The reasons are biochemical but the result is primal. Men as a group are more decisive, females better multi-taskers. Women have higher threshold's for pain; men are physically larger. The list of differences is long but any of the traits is only superior to the other dependent upon the task that needs to be accomplished. If one wants a person to build or protect the home and hearth, I'd want a male for the job. If I wanted someone to manage and care for the home and hearth, I'd want a woman. This doesn't mean a woman can't build a house or protect it. it doesn't mean a male can't manage and care for a home. It does mean that men as a group are better at the tasks for which they are genetically pre-disposed and women are better at their genetically pre-disposed tasks. Being male, I want a women for the things she is biologically, biochemically and psychologically best suited. She is superior at those things and she should do them. She is my compliment. I'm a large man but I've known women that outweighed me by 100 pounds but they weren't stronger. I won't address the subject of females in the Dominant role but I would never want a submissive that was bigger, stronger or more decisive than I, and I doubt I'll ever find one. Fortunately, I'm not looking for one.

I've been visiting CM for some time now and even met a sub I thought might be worth consideration. she turned out to be too bi-polar to be managed without serious psychotropic drugs, but she was in denial. Fortunately, I discovered this before accepting her as my slave. Beyond that, CM has largely been a fruitless endeavor, apart from the ocassional interesting photograph.

I readily admit that I'm rather old school when it comes to WIITWD. Before BDSM became a another kind of kink that some use to enhance their bedroom activities and sub or slave became a label people used to try to attract partners that might not otherwise considered them, the titles sub, slave, top, bottom, Dom, Master, Lord and a host of others had fairly precise definitions. At least they described a spectrum of the types of activities those who adopted those labels sought. Those definitions have become muddy precisely because those that use BDSM as bedroom play or added incentive for others to accept them as a partner aren't truly what they label themselves. They have little understanding that BDSM isn't about an activity, it's a state of mind that grows out of a state of being.

Those of us that have been engaged in BDSM for many years don't decide to engage in WIITWD, it is who we are as beings, sexually and psychologically. Just as being heterosexual influences every interaction between those of the opposite gender, BDSM influences every interaction between us and others. Just as being heterosexual doesn't mean that one wants to become sexually involved with every other person of the opposite gender they encounter, being sub, Dom, Sadist or masochist doesn't mean one wishes to submit to or Dominate, punish or be punished by everyone they encounter, but it is a part of their interpersonal dynamic. All this should be obvious; what isn't so obvious is a larger parallel. Whenever a heterosexual is in a sexual situation, a decision must be made about how to handle that situation. In other words, if a person of the opposite sex presented themself naked or seductively attired and indicated a willingness to enage in sexual activity, the person to whom the offer is being made would have to decide whether or not to engage. If they decided not to engage, the situation would require some delicacy in declining, lest one hurt the feelings of the person making the offer. Much the same occurs when one identifies as a sub, slave or masochist. Identifying oneself in that way is to a considerable degree an invitation to Doms, Masters or Sadists to engage in Dominant, Mastering or Sadistic behavior. It might not be quite as blatant as stripping naked but it is certainly equivalent to dressing provocatively. In a live encounter, for example at a munch, the usual no BDSM dynamic) to kinky, to the most hardcore BDSM dynamic. I know where I fall on that spectrum but I can't judge the hearts of others, thus where anyone else falls. Each individual must determine this for him/herself, I simply wish that those for whom this is simply kinky play would find their own place to play, they're giving BDSM a bad name.

Collarme is Collarme, not "Love Is A Many Splendid Thing." I think confusion over that issue is the reason for so much lamenting over the attitude some Doms convey in their messages. If one were trying to win the heart of a vanilla woman, one might be inclined to spout sweet, flowery prose and genuflect if she responded favorably. Part of what makes a Dom a Dom is the very resonable expectation that subs and slaves want to be subs and slaves, not damsels to be won. When a self-declared sub or slave sets all manner of conditions on who she will submit to or who can be her owner, she is asserting that she is entitled to a privelidge reserved to those outside the BDSM community. Entry into the BDSM community changes the rules. The titles "sub" and "slave" are proud titles, but they are earned, just as the title Master or Dom should be earned. Back in the day, you couldn't call yourself a Dom or Master until you had dominant control of a sub or ownership of a slave, with all the responsibilities those roles demand. It seems that in today's BDSM community the desire to control or own is sufficient, even if all you've actually done is spanked a girlfriend or engaged in rough sex. Such behavior may be indicative of Sadistic tendencies but they aren't bona fides for a Dom or Master. I won't get into the original meaning of the title "Lord," but it encompassed more responsibility than either Dom or Master. So, if you're going to describe yourself as a sub or slave, you should at some point have been a sub or slave, otherwise you're a wannabe, at best. Whatever your tendencies, whatever the limitations CM places on how you classify yourself, your profile can make it clear whether you're entitled to wear the title sub or slave. If you're not, make it clear in your profile that you don't really know what you are, that you're exploring your tendencies, looking for kinky sex, want an alpha male partner or whatever your genuine position in WIITWD. It will spare you a lot of misunderstanding and perhaps hurt feelings. It will spare those with whom you interact wasting a lot of time trying to explain what should be evident in the heart of a genuine sub or slave.

Almost every time I visit CM I find a new list of females professing to be submissive or slave. With amazing frequency they claim or complain that they have received pages of notes from professed Dominants. They typically go on to state that they will delete unread any notes from those that don't have photos. This is, of course, a clear statement that these are superficial girls who intend to judge a book by its cover and demand that the cover be displayed to facilitate their purported explorations. I have never read a sub/slave profile that states that profiles without revelatory journal entries that describe a Dom's BDSM philosophy and predilections will be deleted. These aspects of a Dom's personality will dictate the rules under which a slave will live and the philosophy that will guide the scenes in which a sub would be a participant, yet it never seems to be a consideration. submissives and slaves run the gamut from dumb as a post to smart as a whip yet this lack of intellectual curiosity seems bound to convert ignorance into stupidity, and there's no cure for stupid.

If we assume, a priori, that all subs and slaves are not stupid, what would explain their lack of intellectual curiosity? I can come up with a few theories. One possibility is that they hold the romantic notion that their perfect Dom will send a custom crafted note that will sweep them off their feet--which is one way to get to ones knees--or at least intrigue them enough to want to respond to request further seduction. Most are likely to find this an unsuccessful strategy. Most Dom's are not pimps, they may not be seductive writers and the role of "Prince Charming" is somewhat antithetical to the straight-forward honesty that should typify the Dominant.

A second theory is that subs/slaves are either lazy or extremely insecure, which might explain why they need to be dominated, to get them to take action, even when taking action is in their own best interest. A sub/slave that is seriously interested in finding an ideal, or nearly so, Dominant would actively read the profiles of those Dominants that are prospective partners. This investigation might be constrained by whether or not relocation is practical or other such logistical factors but those who are serious about finding a partner must take the actions necessary to do so. Coming to CM is a first step, but only a first step. Attending a meeting of a BDSM organization, or frequenting a BDSM theme bar, party, munch or whatever is available in their area but not speaking to the others in attendance, waiting for someone to compel them to speak, doesn't move one closer to finding a partner, it merely makes one aware that there are partners in their area. Similarly, posting a profile and waiting for someone to compel them to communicate isn't going to happen.

Still a third theory is that many professed subs/slaves are actually looking for a vanilla relationship with some degree of kink thrown in to keep things interesting. and a bit forbidden. This makes CM a kind of eHarmony for the kinky. They want to be seduced by purported Doms that can read between the lines of their profile and spot them for what they are and they hope that that purported Dom is actually, like them, really looking for a vanilla relationship with some degree of kink. The math works heavily against female purported subs/slaves, since males seeking that sort of relationship don't need CM, they can go to any local club and find plenty of females that will happily engage in such relationships, but hope springs eternal.

So, how is a sincere sub/slave to find a good Dom on CM? The answer is simple but the process takes work. Thus, if laziness or insecurity is the correct theory, very few will find partners. Of course, those are better prospects than if the "Prince Charming" theory is correct but it may be better than if the vanilla with kink theory is correct. Best of all, for those who are either too lazy or too insecure, their fate is in their own hands. They can start reading profiles and sending notes to those Doms whose profiles seem to convey a philosophy and predilections that is compatible with their own. If they open the lines of communication, ask questions about areas that are unclear, and invite further communication, perhaps a public meeting and see where things go from there, they'll have a far better chance of finding a good partner, a partner compatible with their philosophy and predilections. A happy sub/slave is a sub/slave with a good partner; seek and yea shall find.
 

I have been visiting Collar Me for more than five years and I continue to visit from time to time. I have no expectation that I will find anyone worthy of My consideration, but reading the profiles of those who join is amusing. As some of My earlier Journal entries may reveal, I have been wrestling with the disconnect between what people say they are--submissive or slave--and what they actually are based on what they disclose through their profile. Dismissing the scammers W/we all know visit Collar me fairly routinely, only to vanish when they have been reported and removed by our hosts or they realize that CM is not the fertile ground they might have envisioned.  Then there are the out and out fakes; individuals that think putting up a profile on CM is good for a few laughs. I suspect W/we all have had those psychotropically altered nights when anything imaginable was funny. When morning comes, if they remember having visited CM at all, the profile, usually lacking any meaningful detail, is abandoned and forgotten.

The bulk of the profiles on CM are intended as good faith efforts to share some information about themselves with those who view their profile. After more than five years I have come to be persuaded that most of these profiles are unintentionally disingenuous. Part of the problem is that CM doesn't offer labels that can accurately convey the predilections of those creating profiles. Submissive, Slave and Switch don't come close to reflecting the breadth of diversity of those who self-identify as interested in or participating in BDSM. For example, as I have learned, the preponderance of those who identify as "submissive" are actually seeking a vanilla relationship with some kink in the form of BDSM role play. Some are straightforward in admitting this in the body of their profile, most are not. The moment one reads a qualification other than sexual orientation: whether race, height, weight, age or what you will, it is clear the poster is seeking someone to fulfill a role. Their criteria are much like the information in a casting call. To continue the analogy, the Dominant is the Director, our CM hosts have set themselves up as the casting directors but without providing the training or tools necessary to do a proper casting. Those who post profiles are seeking roles in a Director's production but without knowing the role they are applying to play or even the words that might be used to describe the role they wish to play. Small wonder their applications, in the form of their profiles, are mislabelled, if not disingenuous.

The genuine heartfelt submissive, like the dedicated thespian, doesn't t care with whom she will play her role or what role she will play, she will play whatever role the Director gives her to play, being happy to be part of the production. Like any actress, she doesn't get to qualify or pick her Director, she doesn't get to pick her fellow players and she doesn't get to re-write the script. All analogies limp at some point, and this one is no exception. Anyone bold enough to Direct her is her Director. Anyone who is confident enough to issue orders to her is her Director/Dominant for the moment, unless or until she accepts the Collar of One Dominant/Director she then calls "Master."

W/we who join and visit CM don't get to dictate how CM is run. It isn't a democracy and the whim of our hosts and technology dictate the identifying labels on each profile. It would be very useful to have "vanilla-sub" or some such option as a way to indicate that the person posting the profile is seeking a primarily vanilla relationship with some kink in the form of BDSM role play. In some cases this role play will be limited to the bedroom, in others it will extend to some of the private interaction between the P/parties. Unless it extends to all the interaction between the P/parties, not as role play but as part of who they are as individuals, it isn't a fully BDSM relationship and the P/parties aren't Dominant and submissive, they are V/vanilla people intermittently playing the roles of Dominant and submissive.

A Dominant is dominant in His interactions with anyone and everyone He encounters. Not everyone He meets will be submissive but whether or not they are, he remains His Dominant self. Frankly, He cannot be otherwise. He may modulate His manner and behavior to suit His environment, because it suits his purposes, but He is always a Dominant. The same should be true of the submissive. she should submit to all who instruct her or give her orders. she is, in her heart, a people pleaser who finds joy in pleasing all those she encounters. one cannot be a people pleaser without being a person pleaser, so she is submissive to all those who find joy in dominating her. Circumstance may motivate her to deny her need to submit but the need remains. For those for whom that is not true, they are neither submissive or slave, they are, at the most extreme, people who enjoy acting submissively at some times with some people. submissiveness is not heart of their heart, bone of their bone. Such individuals are not wrong, or bad, they are simply not submissives, they are what I chose to call "vanilla-subs." They are ideal matches for those who like to play at being a dominant at times, with some people. If only such people could more readily find each other, they would leave the course clear for those who are hard core Dominant or submissive. Alas, our hosts have not facilitated this identification, so We are left to read the profiles of those who don't really know who or what they are, and/or can't find a label that can express who and what they are. I lament the lack of adequate labels for these folks but W/we explore the world of BDSM with the tools we have, not the tools W/we want.

I have learned from long experience that I'm by nature a romantic. I have the capacity to love passionately and profoundly. Part of being a romantic, however, is knowing when to allow that strong inclination in Me to hold sway. Women are women, whether vanilla, sub or slave they tend to seek romance as justification for or validation of their sexuality. Many women go so far as to claim they can't respond sexually without a romantic attachment to their partner. This is at best disingenuous in that these same women respond to toys, to which "romantic attachment" would be fetish. However significant the mental component, sexual response is almost solely physiological--just ask Masters & Johnson. Still, inculcated with Judeo-Christian cultural norms, many women, including subs/slaves persist in their assertion that romance is fundamental, if not essential, to their submission, not withstanding that BDSM is already outside most modern cultural norms. All manner of mental gymnastics are engaged in to give this qualification a shroud of logic, though most simply ignore this oxymoron. It is fair, however, to speculate that it is a combination of cultural indoctrination and puritan guilt that motivates the attachment to romance as license for sexuality.

"A Dom must win my heart to win my submission," in one variation or another, is a common refrain. Advocates of this reasoning bolster this argument with the true but trite observation that the mind is the most erogenous organ. Without examining all the flaws in the logic that ties these ideas together, it is interesting to observe that so many of those who embrace our alternate sexuality cling to this rather provincial attitude, but it is clear that many do. If this misguided belief had no downside, it would be irrelevant but it has significant down sides and, therefore, I believe the wisdom of this attachment is worthy of examination; and so I shall.

Even a cursory examination of the many female sub/slave profiles on this site, and listening to the chat that occurs at most BDSM events, strongly suggests that many subs/slaves prepare to embark on a path toward a romantic relationship rather than a more purely submissive or subservient one. They definitively and unapologetically assert that this is imperative. The passion with which they argue the rationality of this requiem is suspect but the hostility many add to their insistence is more telling. Because of this passion and hostility and the fact that the heart is only rarely persuaded by the mind, it is unlikely that this journal entry will change any hearts. It may, however, get some to thinking, reexamining their past relationships with an eye toward the reason for their failure. If they are honest in their assessment they will find that changes in the romantic dynamic was at the core of the failure. It could spare both Doms and subs a good deal of future grief if this writing informed their future judgments but if men too often lead with their dicks, women too often lead with their hearts; neither leads with their mind, the organ best suited to the purpose. This resistance should not preclude making the logical argument and so I will, while fully expecting a degree of wrath from the more vociferous on this site.

Logic dictates that physical attraction should not be a significant factor in determining the right partner for a female sub/slave in this lifestyle. It probably shouldn't be in choosing life partners generally but that is beyond the scope of this missive. Age, looks and other such factors are irrelevant to who wields a flogger, who trains a sub to organize her life, who ties the knots that bind her wrists without cutting off circulation and all other such activities. They are also serve as poor predictors of the potential durability of a relationship. Physical factors have negligible impact on how insightful a Dom will be or how responsible He will be in His comportment. It happens occasionally that the right Master for a slave is also a physically attractive and romantic match but if the predicate for submission/enslavement is vanilla style attraction, more often than not the relationship is probably doomed. Romantic attraction historically fades over time. However much W/we idealize the notion of preserving passion over the duration of O/our relationships, it at least changes over time and along with it the core bond of the relationship. This is why there are so many previously owned subs and freed slaves. Building a relationship on an eroding or at least shifting foundation is not a practice with reassuring prospects.

If romantic attraction and the associated physical appeal factors aren't well advised criteria for determining the best partner, what then are the criteria that predict a safe, sane, consensual and happily enduring BDSM relationship? That is a subject for another journal entry but there are far better predictors than those being embraced by most subs/slaves and I intend to examine them.  

                                   submission and choice

Except for those profiles that serve as pronouncements that the profiled person is "only looking for friends," nearly every profile that contains any information provides the criteria the profilee will exercise in deciding upon the person with whom they hope to partner. It seems that exercising such choice has come to be expected, if not demanded, by almost every person in the BDSM scene. The cornerstones of the modern BDSM interaction are predicated upon choice: "Submission is given not taken," "under consideration," even safe words are examples of how choice is incorporated into the scene. It seems that this incorporation of choice is now so entrenched that it is heretical to challenge it. That said, whenever something becomes dogma or doctrine, it is time to examine it to test its validity. This journal entry will look at this orthodoxy.

In the majority of cultures the pairing of partners is dictated by the parents of the parties being paired. The prime reason for the pairing is typically economic but may be driven by religion, class, politics or, in rarer instances today, line of royal succession. Even in "modern" western cultures, where the betrothal practice has been largely abandoned, some groups exercise great pressure in the determination of marital partners. Female children often go from being their parents property to being their husband's property without ant exercise of her discretion but even males may be denied choice regarding their spouse. Dismissing the lengthy historical period during which cavemen claimed their mates by the divine right of clubbing any who disputed their claim, most partners have been chosen for reasons having little to do with their physical appeal to each other, apart from their potential fertility.

While poor choice is not the only reason, it is a predominant reason that any given marriage has no better than a 50/50 chance of succeeding and overall 70% of all marriages fail. Based on statistics alone it can be argued that the modern failure of relationships is proportional to the exercise of choice by those who elect to enter into relationships. Moreover, in a near complete inversion of the historical practice, males--usually fathers--picked their son's mates and their daughter's future husbands. Today women increasingly dictate who they date and thereby are most likely to marry. Reasoning from these facts, choice generally doesn't seem to be a good idea and female dictated choice appears a worse idea. Not withstanding the evidence that supports these conclusions, most sub profiles, under one theory those least logically entitled to exercise choice rather than submit to the choice of others, declare who can contact them and who they will consider as potential partners. Adding to the absurdity of these declarations of criteria, their  criteria are almost always based on physical characteristics--typically stated as chemistry--rather than personality characteristics, which are far more crucial to the long term success of interpersonal relationships. It is small wonder that the younger and less experienced the submissive--both in BDSM and in life--the more likely the profile will place emphasis on superficial factors. It was either George Bernard Shaw or Bertrand Russell who said, "'Tis a pity youth is wasted on the young" but we are all "too soon old and too late smart."

Most of My journal has been directed toward sharing my admittedly-old-guard attitudes regarding the declining respect of many in the community for protocol and the ambiguous, if not meaningful, use and mis-use of the terms W/we employ to communicate the nature of O/our practice of BDSM. I have, however, shared very little about My personal practice of the lifestyle or interactions in the scene. My pleasures in this scene are many, which is much of the lure--indeed My compulsion--toward D/s and to some degree SM. Since My knowledge of the lifestyle is neither theoretical nor solely intellectual, sharing some of that which pleases Me may help some of you who read My words to recognize yourself. If you do, you may contact Me so that W/we may explore O/our mutual passion.

Simply stated, my little one/servant/slut's obligation is to worship, serve, spoil, pamper and amuse Me. When My sub/slave fulfills these obligations, she pleases Me and is rewarded through My words and deeds. When she fails in these opportunities to please Me, she is corrected, admonished, chastised, humiliated, disciplined and, as a last resort, punished. Within the bounds of safety and sanity, punishments may be quite severe and may be protracted by nature and in duration. They are, however, pointedly directed toward modifying the attitudes and/or behaviors that motivated them. That said, I rarely find joy in administering punishment.

The nature of the rewards My sub/slave receives for her service to Me depend almost entirely upon the activities that please her and which also please and/or amuse Me. In addition, I favor activities that encourage and expand the bond between My slut and I. These may include allowing her to bathe Me--or I may elect to bathe her--allowing her to massage Me--or I may elect to massage her--allowing her to orally, vaginally, anally or otherwise sexually satisfy Me, whether or not I provide her with sexual stimulation or instruct her how to stimulate herself and/or whether I permit her to orgasm. Her orgasms are always at my discretion as is her chastity. I may, on occasion, permit her to bathe in My urine or, when I'm feeling loving, to drink My urine. I do not view any of these activities as punishment or humiliation. Rather, they are means of linking her service to Me to physical aspects of My being. I would no sooner deny her these pleasures than I would deny her the boon of cooking or cleaning for Me.

I expect My other to honor the rules of My lacto-ovo vegetarian household and to be frank, open and honest with Me in all regards and on all matters, In some relationships, at some times, with some partners I will closely monitor the dietary, exercise and dress practices I set for her. I will, on occasion, with some partners, impose speech restrictions. I may extend My control to all areas of My partner's life except, in some cases, her career, though I may advise in that area as well. As in any life relationship, no area is off limits for discussion but I may elect not to engage in some areas.

Though in times past I was far more amenable to open relationships, today I tend strongly toward monogamy, though in the case of a strongly bi-sexual partner I might permit exception. As long as My sub/slave fulfills My needs, which differ at various times, I have never found monogamy troublesome but a closed polyamorous relationship with the right partners would not be out of the question, though I am not compelled by the possibility. Obviously, no journal could begin to address all the issues that are part and parcel of a D/s relationship, each of which is dynamic. I am open to discussion on all matters but some are non-negotiable. It should, however, always be remembered that attitude, comportment and demeanor are essential elements of the behaviors I expect of My subs/slaves. All these and the practices I expect can be learned but a level of diligence is be required, therefore, only the serious need apply.

As stated in my earlier journal entry, I'm propose to explore the issue of whether declared subs have the right to decline any logistically feasible, safe, sane and legal instruction from any Dom/Master/Lord. Now is the time this is the place.

On CM the designations "sub," "slave," and "switch" are nearly meaningless, which explains much of the conflict, confusion and consternation that arises in the interactions between seeking parties. It also explains much of the venomous rhetoric found in the profiles of those declaring themselves "sub." The fact that many who aren't seeking partners use CM as a resource for maintaining contact with friends in the scene compounds the problem, adding frustration to the efforts of those earnestly seeking partners. I hasten to add that O/our hosts at CM are to be praised for their conspicuous efforts to run a great space but, as stated earlier, all choices have consequence. W/we who make use of the service that CM provides more effectively than any other site on the web of which I'm aware, must deal with the reality it presents, unless O/our hosts at CM elect to add a number of other categories to the five they currently offer. I would suggest that "bottom" more accurately describes the majority of those who are unattached and looking. A separate grouping to distinguish those who are seeking partners from those who aren't--those seeking friends, knowledge etc.--would also be useful. An orientation category for "same" could facilitate distinguishing partners who are true prospects from those who are only seeking same sex partners. This would be useful for the many subs seeking same sex partners to add to their pairing, as well as Dom/mes seeking partners open to the opposite gender. I hope O/our hosts will consider these emendations.

There is argument about the roots and underpinnings of BDSM in those who are attracted/compelled to it. This debate persists in both the BDSM community and the psychological community. Some believe it is their nature, that they were born Dominant, submissive or switch; others believe it is nurtured behavior, learned through the dynamic of their parental and/or authority figures during their formative years. Like sexual orientation, some, usually those who disapprove of O/our predilections and behaviors, believe it is a choice; others believe it is as much a part of O/our psycho-sexual make-up as sexual orientation, Whichever theory one subscribes to, I am aware of no definitive research that confirms or refutes the hypothesis, not withstanding the fact that the debate still rages in some circles regarding nature/nurture and choice regarding sexual orientation. In the final analysis, it is probably irrelevant to most of U/us how W/we came to recognize O/our BDSM attraction, once O/one embraces it as a part of their personality, to whatever extent they embrace it, they need to find a counterpart to find fulfillment. The process of "finding" a partner requires identifying those with whom they are potentially compatible. Toward that end, and for other reasons, W/we in the community of declared BDSMers have tried to develop language that helps communicate O/our particular orientation. Despite its utility, this effort seems to have caused, or at least encouraged, some unintended consequences. It seems that some declared subs and slaves have taken O/our nomenclature as license to be quite specific about who can communicate with them as part of their search for potential partner(s). This is not only lamentable but deplorable. I propose to examine this irony.

Without taking a position on the practice, if submissives were to be strictly consistent with their declared role, they would effectively surrender their right to decide to whom they submit through the act of declaring themselves submissive. Those unwilling to submit to All who declare themselves as Dominant might more accurately describe themselves as "bottom," but not submissive. Placing limitations on Those who can contact them would then be "topping" from the bottom. It is clearly not strictly submissive behavior. Some might dismiss this as a simple gap in O/our language tools but attitude that too often accompanies the statement of these restrictions suggests it is more disrespectful, if not mean-spirited.

Regardless of whether one has previously been a sub or even a slave, placing limitations on who may contact one or how they may be contacted is antithetical to their declared role, and as such hypocritical, if not dishonest. It might even be argued that declared lesbian sub/slaves that state "No Men" or worse, in Internet speak, "NO MEN," are out of line. A Dom may be wasting His time to contact a declared lesbian but it is His time to waste. A sub may state preferences--while a slave may only state preferences if asked or given permission--but preferences aren't typically binding on a Dom/Master/Lord. Should a Dom/Master/Lord elect to contact a declared sub, she might respectfully decline His advance but not restrict His right to do so. If a declared Dom is disrespectful in His advance, she may state her objection, or on CM block Him, but, whatever her previous experience, doing so does not justify prior restraint. Obviously, if one is collared, owned or even under consideration the instructions of their Dom/Master/Lord would prevail, but under strict protocol unattached subs might not even be permitted to decline any logistically feasible, safe, sane and legal instruction from any Dom/Master/Lord. Alas, strict protocol--much like the respect of minors for their elders--is a declining practice of the S/social fabric, but I'll leave that issue for another day.

It is amazing how many novice or near-novice purported submissives find their way to this site and post profiles with little or no information about themselves but often a list of criteria for what they want. Often this list sounds more like their requirements for a vanilla boyfriend than a Dom/Trainer. They have little or no clue of what a Dom/Trainer must invest into training a sub and less idea of what they will need to go through in the process of being trained. Starting from this ignorance is understandable--we were all ignorant at some point in our evolution in the scene--but failing to appreciate their state of ignorance can quickly move them into the realm of stupidity. Ignorance yields to knowledge and experience; alas, there is no cure for stupid.
   Perhaps the problem is that little is written by experienced Doms or subs about how to best begin the process of learning how to become a happy, healthy, well-adjusted sub. Few subs find their ideal Partners without a number of false starts, thus they aren't particularly well suited to describe how best to start. Few Doms find their partners, whether or not ideal, without investing tremendous effort into relationships that don't work out, thus they aren't well suited to describe the beginnings of a successful process. The commitment made by both Dom and sub in beginning a relationship, whether as a Trainer or otherwise. is significant. A degree of wariness is understandable; too much is inhibitive, too little dangerous. However, most D/s relationships don't start out on the Internet; they start like vanilla relationships, part serendipity, some earned trust, some blind faith and a lot of one on one interaction. Ultimately, that's how all relationships must develop. A limited amount of e-mailing, on-line chatting and phone conversation may serve some purpose but a real relationship doesn't begin until the first meeting. All the rest is prologue.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned. More likely, those who seek relationships through the Internet do so, at least in part, to avoid real life contact. S/some may not even realize the ambivalence that drives T/their actions. Whatever the case, I have no interest in cyber interaction, phone sex or becoming pen pals. Further, I'm inclined to think the Net is antithetical to the type of profound relationship D/s interaction requires. Those who are truly interested in developing a relationship, D/s or vanilla, should, it seems to Me, agree to meet in person, talk face-to-face, test the physical chemistry that may or may not exist and generally interact under real world conditions. How else can O/one determine whether anything meaningful can develop?

I am not insensitive to the risk O/one takes in meeting a person with whom they have had only limited previous interaction but, as the prevalent recurrence of complaints about fakes and wannabes that appear in the profiles of subs and slaves indicates, interaction over the Net is small protection against such individuals. A meeting in a safe public place allows each party to evaluate the individual with whom they will be dealing using all the tools that are typically available in judging people. This isn't a perfect means of screening, particularly for the many inexperienced subs that post profiles, but it certainly provides a far better and equally safe way of meeting. I suspect that exchanges of email messages may actually increase the risks associated with a meeting, as such correspondence may foster a false sense of intimacy based on what may be carefully crafted e-mails that promote the idea that the author is other than what they purport to be. This is a sorry state of affairs but judging others through real world interactions is the best tool we have and, it seems to me, it should be used more fully.

D/s relationships have always required a great deal of underlying trust. How O/one can develop that trust without real life interpersonal relations is beyond me. For that reason the reluctance to meet face-to-face has proven a source of undue frustration to me. I have contacted a small number of subs who reside within a reasonable distance to me, and whose profiles offered enough information determine that they might make viable partners. I have written notes suggesting a meeting and received condescending, if not hostile, responses. I suspect these responses are prompted by some sense that I am attempting to move too quickly. If one claims to want a real life relationship, should they not be willing to meet in real life? It seems, once again, that life can be truly nonsensical. subs have an important role in forming solid D/s relationships. If they don't behave in a manner consistent with the goals they state in their profiles, it is small wonder they don't find the kinds of Doms they claim to want.