So, what's in it for a Master?

Posted by lili on Thu 18 Jan 01, 8:58 PM

So, what's in it for the Master? At first it seems obvious...he gets his washing done, his meals cooked, he never has to wash up etc etc...and, yes, he gets to have sex whenever [and indeed however] he pleases. Bringing it down to basics he gets to do exactly what he wants, whenever he wants...or does he?

It seems to me that, OK, so long as a Dominant is able to control his submissive effectively he should be able to get what he wants from her, but a child who has learned to manipulate [control] a parent can do that [to some degree] too, infact we see that kind of interaction going on everyday in vanilla relationships, so do we define what it is a dominant does by his ability or willingness or even his need to control things alone? Or is there something else?

Could it be more to do with *how* he controls than the mere fact he *can* control? [Perhaps, even, "rules" would be a better term than "controls"?]

Looking at it from a "ruler" point of view, what is it that defines a good [effective] ruler from a bad [less effective] one? Furthermore, who is it that decides what constitues "effective" rule? Is it the "subject" [his slave]? If the slave can dictate what is effective rule, isn't she controlling the nature of the relationship?

Is it our soiciety? But how can a society that refuses to accept our lifestyle choices dictate our "norms"?

Is it the ruler [Master] himself? In which case shouldn't he be able to operate entirely under his own set of rules, without compromise?

The real question I see is this: A Dominant may well be able to enslave his submissive but is his ability to rule her *effectively* entirely compatible with "selfish" acts?

Take a look at the Kings and Queens of England. They all, by their ascention to the throne, were given the right to rule. However, how effective they were as rulers depended a great deal on the motivation driving the decisions they made.

Richard III, for example, won popularity by boosting trade and by the introduction of financial reform but his ruthlessness in usurping the throne from his nephew, Edward V [one of the princes in the tower] led to a short and insecure reign which lasted only 2 years.

Henry VIII was a King whos sheer forcefulness was described as "unparalleled in modern times", but was soured by his own obsession to produce a male heir.

Mary I's persecution of 283 protestant martyrs earned her the name of "Bloody Mary" despite her drive to supress protestantism in England because of her devout catholic beliefs.

Charles I's conceit and refusal to compromise ultimately led to his downfall [and execution] in 1649 despite the fact that he was a charismatic "family man".

Often the most effective rulers were those who put their responsibility to the throne before their own personal desires. Elizabeth I's refusal to marry [perhaps fearing her mother's fate] enabled her to control and cultivate a public image of herself as an icon of monarchy which was extremely successful.

Looking closely it would seem that a ruler, if their rule is to be at all effective, must attempt to balance their responsibilities towards their subjects, society and themselves. Is it any different for a Master ruling his household?

The more I come to think about the complexity involved in such a balancing act the more I come to realise how easy my life is. What's in it for the Master?...Sheesh!!...damned if I know!

Edited Thu 18 Jan 01, 9:07 PM by lili