O&P website and blog,
are where most of my new writing on M/s appears. The IE website will stay
online indefinitely to host the IE Essays and lili's writings.
lili and I pursued our M/s relationship from 2000 to 2008, and lili has kindly given her permission for these essays and posts to remain here, in the hope that submissives and slaves will continue to be helped and inspired by them.
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
Looking at it from a "ruler" point of view, what is it
that defines a good [effective] ruler from a bad [less
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
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
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
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
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
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
Edited Thu 18 Jan 01, 9:07 PM by lili