It’s my opinion that dominant/submissive relationships are highly structured and incorporate a control-based dynamic. That said, I can see why slave and object-applicants often seek details of what their relationship will look like once they enter into it. It’s not an unreasonable question and no matter how you want to structure your relationship, you probably are going to ask a similar question.
More common relationships probably need less discussion because there are many role models which the couple can look to in creating their relationship. Obviously objectification isn’t one of them. "Slavery" may have a bit more commonality in the BDSM subculture but even at that it’s not enough to give us a good picture.
In any case the question is really a more personal question and it can be better stated as "What will you require of me in terms of obedience?" That answer will always vary as all relationships, and I mean ALL, are created by the two people in them.
So a recent applicant asked me to “elaborate” on my rules for him. I'll call him Reggie, since he's the guy I wrote about in the "Lessons" blog several weeks ago.
I sent him a copy of thing's most recent list of rules. Thing, as you've been reading, is my object for the time being, now in its second contract and therefore its second set of rules. He wanted to know if thing's rules would be his rules. The answer is no, since every person, place, and thing is unique. Excuse the pun but how could I avoid it?
Questions are well-answered only if one probes the query to answer the actual question, not just the one asked. I could give Reggie a list of rules. After all, even thinking about him and them arouses me. Control is, after all, my primary fetish.
The basic and more important answer has to do with the nature of obedience, which is "The quality or condition of dutifully complying with the commands, orders, or instructions of one in authority." I would quickly note that the definition doesn't contain a list of do's and don'ts. Hell, there aren't even any rules listed. If one has to ask "What are the rules that I will have to obey?" then one is not dutifully complying. One is setting limits and qualifying the meaning and activity of obeying.
This distinction is an important one, since it helps to define the relationship. As my slave Patrick is quick to point out, all relationships have some degree of authority in them, hence they all demand some kind of obedience (Yes, Dear, I'll take out the garbage). In as much as Reggie and I are discussing a more pervasive form of obedience (objectification), then a higher degree of "dutifully complying" is expected.
I distinguish between two forms of obedience. The first, which concerns Reggie, is composed of the rules. The second, which I think is more important, concerns the orders. Simply put, rules are those activities which one obediently performs in a regular and continuing time frame, i.e., "The object will not use the toilet. His usual mode of defecation and urination is into the pail, when permission is granted and the task is monitored." Did I say I was into control? It's my primary fetish.
Orders, on the other hand, pertain to a specific situation, such as "Go mow the lawn." Ah, objects can be so helpful, can't they?
Rules can be further classified into three categories: protocols, routines, and events, though here I might be nit-picking a bit. The willingness to obey grants me the right to determine the rules. Therefore I create protocols. I set its schedule. I control which events happen and when, where, and how. OK, a schedule is actually a set of events. I'm just trying to be clear. Please excuse the obvious redundancy.
Since I've used that over-used word (protocol) I had better note that I am not talking about some set of mythological old-guard invented rites, forms, and expectations. Protocols between master and slave or owner and object are just that: between the two of them. They are meant to define how he, she or it acts towards his, her or its master, mistress, sir, ma'am, or lord. It's your relationship, create your own protocols. Borrowing is allowed; aping is not.
I set its schedule. Rising, grooming, working, serving, waiting, acting, and sleeping. It does what it does because its owner has controlled its day and its night. It needs to be controlled and knowing it is controlled gives it security and a sense of belonging. When it is under control, it is where it wants to be.
Notice, please, that the schedule acknowledges the practical and the mundane as well as the exciting and the sexual. Although it would seem that this is all a fantasy, it can't be sustained if it is lived as a fantasy. Relationships must recognize the pragmatic needs of everyday existence.
And, lastly, there are events. I want to flog it so I do. It may not be in the schedule. It may not be expected. It is simply a matter of my Will be done. That is obedience.
I want Reggie to understand that obedience is not found in a list of rules. It comes, and only comes, with dutiful compliance. That demands surrender. In fact without surrender there can be no actual obedience.
And that's surely a topic for another day. Have a great week. Jack
To read past blogs, go to LeatherViews.blogspot.com. You can send me email at firstname.lastname@example.org or visit my website at http://www.LeatherViews.com. You can also subscribe to my blog at LeatherMusings.blogspot.com. Copyright 2011 by Jack Rinella, all rights reserved.