Is it serving or is it a trade?

It's a symbiotic relationship. Which is a trade is it not?

 

The original question: "Is it serving or is it a trade?" is a thought provoking.

I think it's quite common for dominant women to hide behind the idea of a trade for a long time before taking ownership of the FLR. However, it's only a trade in that all relationships are an implicit trade.

Our desire to serve comes from our submissive orientation. It's not some higher calling. So what we really want is particular role in a relationship.

The baseline proposition is then: "Let me be your slave and you can enjoy things unavailable in a normal relationship."

Ah, but kinky "slaves" require particular treatment! Isn't that a trade?

No because, if this were some dystopia - or Ancient Rome! - where a woman could simply purchase a personal slave, she'd still have to manage him: give him orders, discipline him, keep him in his place. There'd also be protocol so his presence didn't feel intrusive.

As long as the particular treatment makes sense - has no over the top extras - then it's no more a trade than, say, adopting a dog and then having to feed, house and train it.

You could argue that, since he can get bored and pull the plug at any time, she will always feel as if it's a trade. However, from the start, he usually has more to lose than her. He's literally trapped by his own orientation. Over time, the roles just start to feel real and normal.

So though the mistress/slave relationship implies mutual obligations, I don't think it's an actual trade by any common meaning of the word. It certainly doesn't feel like one!

 

I think all D/s relationships are a give and take. Even those who claim to be total "slaves" and have no choices. Well, what about the choice between being with a woman who will enslave you (fulfilling a fantasy or need) and one who would think that FLRs are crazy? So, if a man had no other say in his FLR other than to continue consenting to an FLR, the Domme is still "doing something" for him.

I think a lot of people lose sight of this when they visualize or observe a power exchange relationship. The sub or slave (hopefully) is not being forced to remain in that situation day after day. They chose that Domme and that relationship dynamic because they had a need for it. The Domme, is providing for that need.

When my Mistress commands me to do something, she is "giving" me something, because I want to be commanded and I need to be in service to a strong woman. So there is indeed a balance.

 

As I continue to follow this thread I have one question for Miss @L-u-c-y Do the men that you hold keys to their cages receive anything from you? What they receive doesn’t have to be a lot but do they receive nothing at all, or something that motivates them to stay locked for you.

 

I suppose she is fulfilling their servitude fetish for them?

 

I think a lot of people would like to hear Her answer.

 

Just my opinion but from seeing Ms Lucy's activities on CM and talking to her I would day she is a caring and interested KH. She seems to invest time and interest in her subs and always makes an effort to attend to them

 

Maybe poor choice of words. I meant that you regularly correspond with them and are in contact on a regular basis.

 

S

Sorry Ms L-U-C-Y

 

I think a lot of people might be interested to hear my answer too.
Which is why I chose to reply.

 

That attention you give them and talking to them is evidently all the need. So both side do receive something. Thanks for your Responce.

 

Trade vs Serving Her.

I see it as showing compassionate and well earned love.

As a natural switch, I get both sides of the equation. My partner is very vanilla and very traditional but not submissive. So I look at things now as a fun yin and yang of being dominant but then trying to serve.

 

In my opinion, healthy relationships always give both partners what they need (so yes - a balance). What some call "perverted" relationships can still be "healthy" by this criteria...….it's just that the needs are different. Vive la difference!

 

Never thought to say it, but I really like Mascara_Snakes answer

Any relationship always serves both needs. Why should someone (with a sane / healthy mind) join a relationship if he would not gain anything anyway ?

And this is where Lucys argumentation gets its flaws:
1. Her partners (online-subs or however you would call them) needs can be met without her realizing it
2. It does not need your partners ackonwledgement for your needs beeing met
3. Online keyholding (however it might be done) is completely differen from some rather common relationship. So people might settle with just some of their needs beeing met until they might find the real thing. It is not said that they would settle for the same if it were a classic longterm relationship of any kind.

 

Every voluntary interaction is a trade. Even in charity or volunteer work, I may not be paid in cash but I’m getting the satisfaction of making a difference, it would be pointless without it.

As long as the sub is getting what he wants (attention, keyholding, someone to drool over) then it’s absolutely a trade, no one would do it if they weren’t getting some sort of satisfaction from it.
The thing is that satisfaction is based on subjective personal preferences. Some people think verbal abuse and cold looks are a reward, some are indifferent to it and would never give anything in return.

 

Any interaction requires the exchanging of focus, time and attention whether intended or not. These interactions are often traded without realizing, and can often be taken for granted.

I can't speak for everyone but I've grown to enjoy the little snippets of female attention I am lucky to receive. I recognise how valuable these can be and find them very rewarding.

Because of this I believe it is impossible to receive any form of service without a basic form of trade being included.