Types Of Relationships In Slave Training
What is right, wrong, true, false or whatever about trying to define the types of consensual enslavement relationships and how they view the training of consensual slaves? I will grant that my point of view on the subject is rather obvious but it is who and what I am. I am presenting that view here.
There are always people who seem to see things only from their own perspective and can't understand how anyone else can do anything different from what they do. Even if they are not absolutist about their view, they are at least pretty strong about it. I have boiled these people down to a few generalized groupings for simplicity. Yes, finer distinctions can be made but that would take much more writing than most want to read, or that I want to write.
One point first. Almost everyone agrees that anyone can go to someone who teaches a specific skill or subject that has nothing to do with BDSM/kink/slavery/whatever it is we do and learn something that the other person/people in the relationship do not know. It seems that as long as the subject has nothing to do with slavery, it can be taught by someone else and it is reasonable and proper to do so.
First, you have the love group. These are the people for whom love from both directions in the relationship is everything and you can't be a slave, or a Master, to anyone you are not deeply romantically in love with. This is one of the largest and most vocal groups that say only the slave’s Master can and should teach the slave anything that isn't some mundane knowledge or skill.
Second is the slavery is only about doing things my way group. This group feels that slave training is nothing more than having them do things the way they want it done and nothing else matters. They also tend to feel that almost everything a slave may have learned before must also be retrained by them in their way.
Third is the submission plus knowledge group. This group separates learning to be a slave into two distinct areas. The first part is submitting to and obeying someone else and the second part is the skills needed serve their Master in whatever way they want to be served. This group usually says that both the submission and the general life skills can be trained by anyone and only how to specifically serve their owner must be taught by the slave's Master. In many ways, this is parts of the first two groups put together.
Fourth are the people who just play at being Master and slave when they feel like it and then go back to their mundane (vanilla) lives when they get done playing. It is something they do for enjoyment and sexual excitement. They are also called the weekend warrior types.
I fit into the third group.
I know from experience that submission and obedience can be trained in someone you do not and will not love. I have done so. Sexual activities can make that training easier but they are certainly not a requirement.
There is a group of people who really do like teaching people. Public and private schools, universities and even in businesses are places you will commonly find them. They are usually called teachers. I think we have all known people who really like to teach and to help others to learn. Why should someone who trains slaves be any different than someone who trains people in math or reading or accounting? The activity of teaching is the same, only the subject differs.
The first group usually sees only the relationship as being the submission part of slave training. They usually admit that skills and things which are not part of the relationship itself can be taught or trained. So, if a slave in that relationship took a class in setting the table for a formal dinner or welding or driver's education they admit that someone not their Master can teach those things. It is only the relationship itself which cannot be taught by anyone else. Since the submission comes from the relationship, submission cannot be taught and that is, for them, the main part of what being a slave is all about, submitting to or owning someone you love. This can mean that anything that is seen as diminishing that mutual loving relationship is a bad thing and outside training means that there is now a new relationship which must be a loving relationship forming and thus hurting what they have now.
The second group sees only the training in serving one person as what slavery is all about. Submission comes from doing it their way and only their way. They are, in many ways, the opposite of the first group. The owner and the relationship are totally focused on the owner of the slave. Anything that breaks that focus on the Master is considered a bad thing.
The third group combines the focus points of the first two groups. It pretty much says that slavery is something that is learned and as it can be learned, it can be taught. We all know that knowledge and skills can be taught or trained. I, and others, know that submission can be trained as well. It may be partly instinctive and partly relationship based but it is also something that can be imposed from the outside, especially to a willing student. That imposition is called training.
The forth group is mostly playing at it and probably should just fit somewhere in the first group but I included them for completeness.
There are many people who study how people learn. Cognitive neurology includes the study of how people learn at the cellular level. People earn doctorate degrees in education with dissertations on how people learn. It is a reasonably well studied field. Why should submission, or consensual slavery not be something that can be learned and taught. I have a simple rule that anything that can be learned can be taught.
Our biggest problem is that we, or certainly most people who do this, don't know what is really going on inside the minds of both the Master and the slave. We don't know how what we call enslavement actually happens. Therefore, we argue endlessly about what it is, how to do it and how to make it happen. Some people have theories about it. Some people have knowledge about how learning takes place and how to improve learning a subject. A few people have tried to put these things together.
The real point about people who claim and do train slaves for others and by that, I mean both training submission as well as general knowledge and ways of acting as we think a slave should act, really don't know enough what they are doing and more importantly why they do what they do. I include myself in the not knowing enough group and I know I never will know as much as I want to know. Also, many to possibly even most, really are the types who are just looking more for sex and play with someone and are claiming to be a trainer for that reason. Unfortunately, I have read and/or talked with very few people who treat it more like an academic subject and less like a form of kinky sex play.
Imagine trying to design a make your own college degree program that will grant a degree in the subject of consensual enslavement. What would you need to know and learn to get such a program approved? If you do that, I believe you are starting to think like someone who can and should be capable of training slaves for others.
All material written and © Copyright 2018 by Malkinius unless otherwise noted.
For permission to quote or repost contact Malkinius at firstname.lastname@example.org.