If you are submissive, do you get as excited doing something for your Mistress as you do about what she does to you? If you do not have a Mistress, do you get as excited thinking about doing something for a Mistress as you do thinking about what she might do to you?
Do you feel frustrated or let down if she isn’t excited about dominating you?
No related posts.
How do you manage to make such a profound point strictly by asking questions?
If someone is more excited by what a woman does to him than he is by what he does for her then who is in control?
If he wants her to be excited by what she does to him then shouldn’t he be equally excited by what he can do for her?
I like this game of saying things by asking questions.
I had the opportunity to be the houseslave of a professional domme for almost a year (it ended because she transferred to another place). I cleaned her studio and did some other chores she ordered me to do. I never had a session with this Lady. When I arrived I was allowed to kiss her feet, when I left I could kiss her hand, feet or sometimes her ass. During the cleaning she wanted me to be naked or sometimes to wear my black priest dress (you know, the long black robe). I can’t say that I was excited the whole time doing the chores there, but I loved it. I did love it very much, really very very much. It was a marvellous time. I can’t really explain how much I enjoyed it to be able to serve a Mistress. I love this more than just punishment or so. Although sensuality and tender touchings (also when sometimes exposing or exploring intimate parts) excite me more – nevertheless I have to admit, that I loved this at least as much.
So I have to answer the second question affermative. Yes, just thinking at it how I can serve a Mistress and be at her service excites me very much. Already the idea of bowing down for her and fulfill her wishes excites me immensely. For me that is what submission really means.
When my Mistress (at this very moment I don’t have a Mistress I can serve) is not excited dominating me … yeah, I think that frustrates me. When she is not excited then I don’t like punishment neither. I don’t really know to answer this one very well. But I definetely do not like it when I see that my Mistress does not like it to dominate me (may be I would see it larger than just sexual excitement. I mean like getting wet or so .. ).
I think I would be disappointed if she wasn’t excited because I would feel as if I had let her down or not done something right.
I have no experience with Femdom but with sex in general I have always been excited by doing for and to her and also by what she does.
There would definitely be a problem if all I was concerned about was what she did to me but that would be the case in any relationship.
Thank you fellas for your responses. I thoroughly enjoyed reading them.
It seems to me that you have to have a little of all of it. Joy and excitement in serving and being served, in doing and having done. It’s a relationship, and all relationships require effort and a bit of selflessness on both parts.
Lady Julia says:
It seems to me that you have to have a little of all of it. Joy and excitement in serving and being served, in doing and having done. It’s a relationship, and all relationships require effort and a bit of selflessness on both parts.
I disagree with the selflessness. My experience with selflessness is that in the context of relationships, it ends up leading to at least one (if not more) partners’ needs being overlooked because of failure to prioritise themselves.
Also, my experience with selflessness is that it does not necessarily lead to anybody benefitting. For example, I’m sure the Englishman prided himself on doing the right thing by selflessly disconnecting from you, yet did anybody benefit from that bit of selflessness?
I would rephrase that to read “all successful relationships require effort devoted to both give and take from all participants.”
After all, consideration and giving can all easily be done without any selflessness at all.
Ok, done now. :)
Lubyanka,
I always find your comments interesting and insightful and the way you express yourself delightful, but I find myself in a rare state of disagreement with you here:
“I disagree with the selflessness. My experience with selflessness is that in the context of relationships, it ends up leading to at least one (if not more) partners’ needs being overlooked because of failure to prioritise themselves.”
I don’t think selflessness is at fault for that. Rather, the fault for failing to strike a balance between one’s own needs and another’s lies with the individual’s own failure to strike that balance. ‘If I am not for myself, then who am I?’
“Also, my experience with selflessness is that it does not necessarily lead to anybody benefitting. For example, I’m sure the Englishman prided himself on doing the right thing by selflessly disconnecting from you, yet did anybody benefit from that bit of selflessness?”
Of course it doesn’t necessarily lead to anybody benefitting. Hot fudge sundaes don’t necessarily lead to anybody benefiting, if they are consumed in excess. Shall we try to avoid hot fudge sundaes altogether, then?
With regard to the Englishman: people often do things and tell themselves they are being selfless, when they are acting from other, unacknowledged motivations — or worse, from moral vanity. Just because people do the wrong things and say they are being selfless, does not make true selflessness an invalid response in some situations.
“I would rephrase that to read “all successful relationships require effort devoted to both give and take from all participants.”” (oops — too many quotes!)
How is “give and take from all participants” really different from “a bit of selflessness on both parts”? This strikes me as a distinction without a difference.
“After all, consideration and giving can all easily be done without any selflessness at all.”
And that strikes me as an arid and artificial exercise.
Please forgive my bluntness here. I have a lot of personal experience with this topic, including my own failure to strike balance, so I get what you are trying to say, but I don’t think you quite have it right.
Best,
Felix
You’re right, Felix, I was unclear. What I meant to say was that I feel that focusing on selflessness in and of itself is unproductive.
Since I think that the desired outcome in this context is everybody getting their needs met, I think that focusing on the sacrifice is less useful, and focusing on the actual beneficial outcome is more useful. I think that focusing on selflessness by definition requires focusing on the self and what sacrifices are being made, rather than on the other person’s benefit as an outcome. And I think that focusing on one’s own sacrifice as a goal is kind of pointless. Also by definition it isn’t actually selfless.
For example, if pleasing feels so very very good, then that benefits everybody, and no sacrifice or selflessness is required for that. I felt fantastic when I learnt that with my help, kvetch had passed all his exams. My benefits were my joy and satisfaction knowing that I
– helped kvetch to achieve his goals,
– was useful to him and supported him
– was instrumental in kvetch moving forward with his self-improvement
– helped him be a more confident and knowledgeable partner to me, and
– inspired his increased devotion and service to me
And kvetch’s benefits were
– passing his exams
– achieving his goals
– enlarging his knowledge base
– improving his career prospects
– learning that I can help him in ways he hadn’t known before
– improving his self esteem.
We both benefitted without any selflessness whatsoever.
In my experience, when people focus on their selflessness in the context of relationships, I find that the outcome tends to be more about the sacrifice and less about the benefit. I think that was what I was missing out in my previous post.
In short, my thoughts are:
Benefit another person? Absolutely.
Sacrifice for its own sake? Pointless.
Felix says:
“After all, consideration and giving can all easily be done without any selflessness at all.”
And that strikes me as an arid and artificial exercise.
Can you clarify why you think that including one’s own benefit within consideration and giving is an arid and artificial exercise? I don’t understand what you mean by “arid and artificial” in this context.
Thank you for your kind sentiments about my comments in general, and your input on my previous comment in particular. I see now that I was unclear, and I appreciate you pointing that out.
Best regards,
Lubyanka. :)
Lubyanka,
I disagree with the selflessness. My experience with selflessness is that in the context of relationships, it ends up leading to at least one (if not more) partners’ needs being overlooked because of failure to prioritise themselves.
I did say “a little selflessness”. Doing something we really don’t want to do because someone else wants to do it is in my opinion unselfish. I’m aware of the philosophical discussions regarding whether or not there can be an unselfish act, but it really misses the point I intended to make which was, every now and then in relationships most of us do things that would not necessarily be our preferred thing to do because it’s important to our partner. I think that’s healthy, loving, and respectful. Certainly it can become unhealthy and excessive, but it doesn’t have to be.
Also, my experience with selflessness is that it does not necessarily lead to anybody benefitting. For example, I’m sure the Englishman prided himself on doing the right thing by selflessly disconnecting from you, yet did anybody benefit from that bit of selflessness?
I suppose one could describe what he did as selfless, however if one persists in doing something for another person when it clearly isn’t what the other person wishes, is it selfless?
I would rephrase that to read “all successful relationships require effort devoted to both give and take from all participants.”
After all, consideration and giving can all easily be done without any selflessness at all.
Unless we are in a relationship with our clone, sooner or later we are not going to want precisely the same thing. How is that resolved unless someone is a little unselfish?
Lady Julia says:
I suppose one could describe what he did as selfless, however if one persists in doing something for another person when it clearly isn’t what the other person wishes, is it selfless?
Good question. The question for me here is, how do you define “selfless”? I define it as being without regard or consideration for the self. And the bottom line of my point is, that I disagree that it’s ever necessary to do that.
I cover more about this in the next bit.
Lady Julia says:
Unless we are in a relationship with our clone, sooner or later we are not going to want precisely the same thing. How is that resolved unless someone is a little unselfish?
What I’m trying to say is that I differentiate between choosing to do something which might be less than our first choice, and selflessness.
I think it’s perfectly possible and healthy to make a choice which temporarily prioritises another person’s benefit above our own, whilst still keeping our own benefit in mind. Even if our own benefit might be less than the person we’re prioritising at that moment, that doesn’t mean it’s necessary to ignore or discard any possible benefit to ourselves.
I choose to do certain things which benefit kvetch because keeping him happy, healthy, and fulfilled benefits me in all sorts of ways. Choosing to do things which benefit a partner does tangibly benefit us, because a happy healthy fulfilled partner can be a better partner to us. I believe that the same holds true for friends. If a happy, healthy, fulfilled person is not a better partner or friend to us, then I think that is a good time to re-evaluate how much we are prepared to prioritise that person’s needs in future.
Conversely, I feel that a selfless approach would involve prioritising a person’s needs regardless of whether they were prepared to do or had ever done the same for us, become or had ever been a better friend or partner as a result of our contribution, or even expressed sincere gratitude now or in the past. If a person ignored our contribution to their well-being, made no effort to return the favour at any time in the past, present or future, and treated us poorly on a consistent basis, then I agree that continuing to prioritise that person would be a selfless act. I also think that doing such a thing would be pointless.
Regardless of whether you think it’s pointless or not, I think that one can still choose to prioritise a person like that, and get some benefit, such as the good feeling from helping somebody who needs it. I consider that to be a benefit to ourselves as well. So still, not selfless as I understand the meaning of the word, because there is still some benefit.
I think that consideration of all of those elements is why I feel that selflessness is an unproductive approach to helping others, because there’s no reason why we can’t benefit from choosing to temporarily prioritise others from time to time, even if that benefit is less than that of the person we’re prioritising.
I don’t know how else to explain it. I’m doing my best. I hope that made some kind of sense.
Thank you for your patience in explaining. It seems to me that our differences are mostly semantics.
Regardless of whether you think it’s pointless or not, I think that one can still choose to prioritise a person like that, and get some benefit, such as the good feeling from helping somebody who needs it. I consider that to be a benefit to ourselves as well. So still, not selfless as I understand the meaning of the word, because there is still some benefit.
I don’t consider it pointless, it just was not useful in explaining what I meant.
If the only reason (or main reason) you do something is for the benefits that come to you, that seems pretty selfish.
Now, one can enter into a pretty roundabout argument that all actions can be described as selfish. Let’s say, for instance, that I donate to a worthy charity. I do so because in my opinion, supporting that charity is the right thing to do. Someone could argue that I do it because doing the right thing makes me feel good about myself, which then takes an apparently unselfish act and rephrases it as selfish.
Using that sort of logic, one could describe virtually every act we perform as selfish. When a soldier throws his body on a grenade, he’s doing so because he know everyone will remember him as a hero, for instance. Or perhaps one can twist his values — because he values the lives of the rest of his mates collectively higher than his own, he selfishly sacrifices himself to save something he considers more valuable than his own life.
While there is an grain of truth in arguments of this nature, I still consider them hogwash and would normally discount as a lunatic anyone who seriously tried to make this type of argument. I don’t particularly care how much “logic” can be applied.
When in a relationship with someone you love, there are things you do specifically because doing them makes the person you love happy.
To proscribe selfish motivations onto that… Well, that would make someone a lot less romantic than I am. I hope no one minds if I stick to my more romantic viewpoint.
Free Thinking Writer says:
If the only reason (or main reason) you do something is for the benefits that come to you, that seems pretty selfish.
I would really like to know why the term “selfish” is always used as an epithet, and why “selfless” or “unselfish” are always supposed to be admirable qualities.
I mean, I focus on the outcome, and if my chosen outcome has a more desirable result for all concerned than another one does, then how is it useful or helpful to unfavourably judge me and my motivations?
Let’s say I buy a present for kvetch which pleases both of us inordinately. Let’s say I get him a steel butt plug on which I have engraved “Go fuck yourself. Love and kisses SWMBO”. Now I can imagine taking enormous pleasure in choosing the plug, getting it engraved, wrapping it, and watching kvetch’s face when he opens the package and reads the engraving.
Now let’s say I give kvetch a butt plug which he likes equally well, but which I take less pleasure in giving because it’s pink and I dislike pink.
Which is the more desirable outcome? One in which we both gain a benefit, or one in which only one of us does?
I read a lot of things written by submissive men expressing desires that the woman in their life would take charge of him and focus more on her own pleasures and desires, and how much her doing that would please him. Well, I’m doing that. Myself, kvetch, and my other partners all benefit from me doing that. How can unfavourably judging me with the epithet “selfish” be at all useful, just because I focus on outcomes which include my own benefit? What good can come from deliberately excluding my own benefit? How could an outcome possibly be more desirable if I avoid my own pleasures and desires just for the sake of being “unselfish”?
My partners enjoy my pleasure, I enjoy my pleasure, I enjoy their pleasure, they enjoy their pleasure. How are any of us supposed to benefit by deliberately focusing on choices which benefit ourselves less?
In my opinion, an individual knows best what pleases themselves. By focusing on their own benefit, an individual learns more about what gives them the most pleasure, and therefore can communicate that information more effectively to others. Without that personal focus and resulting self-awareness, a lot of people end up stumbling around in the dark with hit or miss attempts to please others.
In my experience, my approach gets me, my partners, and my friends the most possible pleasure and benefit. If that’s selfish, then ok, I’m selfish. As long as everybody is benefitting as much as possible, I don’t see the point in targeting me with epithets just because I’m choosing paths other than martyring myself.