molding, training

Prologue: i understand this is my point of view, not setting my thoughts and feelings up as universal standards, just opening the topic for discussion and sharing my thoughts and feelings on the topic.

We now return to regular programing.

As a total bottom with some sub thrown in, molding/training is a big topic for me and it is one of the areas where i personally discern the maturity level of a Top/Dom. For me, presumption, force, bullying, are all perceived as immature, and they shut me down.

Conversely, a Top/Dom who knows how to communicate, and wants to, who knows how to articulate Their needs/desires as well as knowing my needs/desires, is setting the foundation to be able to 'mold' and 'train' me. i believe compatibility is crucial, and areas of mutual compatible need/desire are key to a sustainable D/s ,T/b dynamic. For me, this is where trust is being built.

To me, molding and training are a matter of a Dom/Top 'handling' and directing my natural need/desire to please Them vs just trying to command or force what They want/need. It's two different approaches towards the same end, but i see the 'handling' method, where They use the keys to open rooms in me that contain what They want/need. The "handling" method i see as mutual and inclusive, the 'force' method i see as egocentric and exclusive.

There's a start. Will be interested to see how others see this.

I want to touch on this, but I'm not certain my understanding is correct... so, I'm going to jump into this and adjust accordingly.

At first, I was seeing molding and training as being two distinct entities. But as I looked at it further - I saw that we do mold some as we train. Yet I still saw molding in a different light - as being that which we do, to our personal subservient or slave. Molding them into exactly who or what we want them to be on a regular basis for us.

But the OP also touches on negative qualities in individuals which are for them turn offs... bullying, force and presumption.
If a dominant has to use force to imply his dominance over another, then no... they are not in control. The presumption being that because I say I am dominant - and - I believe I have a domineering personality. You must obey me - is false.

Dominance is not a given. Neither is submission and simply being subservient, doesn't make you so to the entire world. Only those individuals, who you see fit in rendering service to can become your dominant. But by some token, they must also prove themselves to you - to be worthy of said position.

So, simply pounding my chest and roaring - I am Dominant. Doesn't do it...

But I feel I am all over the place with my response - so, I'm going to let go of this here and see how the tide flows around me.

i don't think You're all over the place at all. i think this is a vast topic with all sorts of nooks and crannies.
I appreciate how You see this, it feels close and right to how is see this. i think You are right that molding and training are different, they stick together and overlap in me, so i put them together in this discussion.

To me, molding is tricky and wondrous. i had a relationship recently where the Man wanted to turn me into something different that who and how i am. i tried to explain that i don't think one can turn clay into hay, one can mold and shape clay, but it is still essentially clay. To me, that is where discovery of compatibility comes in. If i'm clay and They need/want hay, no amount of 'molding' or 'training' will suffice. To me, that devolves into pretending or role play, which i don't really want because to me what i am and feel is real, not a role i play.

i have used WS as an example of training in other discussions i The Cage, but one could probably substitute that for their particular kink/s. For me, it serves as a good example of training. i don't particularly like urine. i know some drink it from a glass, and that doesn't connect to anything in me. But the idea of drinking a Mans piss from His cock (i'm gay), is a huge turn on for me and has several connecting places a Man can use to "train" me to drink and swallow without spilling a drop. Where the training would come in for me is getting over fear of being overwhelmed by the quantity and the taste. I've tried it a couple of times this last year and was surprised that quantity was not an issue, but taste was. The way to train me is first He has to want/need that just like i do (compatibility) and then need to open those places in me that would get me around my fears, concerns, and tastes. His lust is a big tool (so to speak) that He can use. Often i see lust combined with force, and that takes away the power of HIs lust for me. It's actually more powerful for me if He expresses His lust, but is practically asking permission to do it, which is the opposite approach to force as i perceive it. Another thing would be for Him to take small steps. Just let a little piss go, that would be easily tolerated. Maybe use the 'salt principle'" where He gives me just a little and then praises me and show His pleasure when i take it, evoking in me the desire to please Him more (salt principle is making me 'thirsty' for His pleasure with me). By doing that, He is training me to associate my drinking His piss from HIs cock with His pleasure/beong pleased with me. i can come up with a lot more detail, but that is an example of how i see training.
It seems to me that training will eventually result in molding me into His piss drinker, where i was not before. And that, can go all sorts of places for both of us if the mutual need/desore is there.

Something like this has been on my mind for some time. Evolving. Glad you brought it up.

The force that I've seen, experienced, and heard some yearn for isn't always so overt. I've experienced the same things in "softer" packaging and delivery so to speak. It confuses me. I'm there, focused on the Other, and eager to please. Demonstrate that I'm willing to do what isn't always my cup of tea, that I'm focused on Them, Their pleasure, and willing to be shaped to suit. "Why are You ... manipulating?"

I'll admit I've reached a point of no little cynicism. "Most who identify as Dominant are less about domination or mastery and more about codependence. And, sadly, I suspect they don't realize it."

I admit we more than flirt with some messy stuff when we explore molding and shaping.

I've come to distinguish between what I discern you speak of, what I've laid out to this point, and what I would prefer: *inter*action, *inter*dependence. Dare I even say *inter*course? Using of course the older definition from which the euphemism for coitus arose.

Yes, I'm using the "big words". I do that when I'm trying to be objective. Without that?

"We're less a 'scene' and a 'community' and more a gaggle of children playing with matches; standing in a puddle of gasoline."

@Snowfalcon; question regarding the usage of codependence... if I am reading what you are saying, it looks to me that you are saying the dominant is codependent on the submissive? But wouldn't it be the other way around? Where the submissive is codependent of the dominant - enabling their bad habits and/or behavior? Especially if the domineering individual isn't acting in a mature fashion...

The dominant in this instance would be borderline self-destructive, acting in a singularly focused manner to achieve an individual goal??? Most likely some form of sexual stimulation or gratification.

Which I admit - I see all to often in newer dominants and would be so-called masters. Seeking or using kink to get-off as it were sexually - in a more debased or carnal manner.

I would say it leans more into ignorance and male machismo - the whole I am Manly and therefore correct in taking that which I want how I want - attitude. As opposed to coming into it from a more learned stance. Understanding the nuances of the scene, the roles and how they interact with each other - correctly.

But I've always been one to stand back and watch how it was done first. Study it, understand it, then apply it and learn how to use it. Through interaction with another - who was equally inclined to learn as I...

Unless you are saying that the submissive is the self-destructive individual. And the dominant is enabling them to implode???

@Kurai Mori ... Actually, either or both. Codependency, as I understand it, I wouldn't necessarily label as "self destructive", that feels a bit strong, but it can be. At least damaging.

I would describe it more, as we tend to, as a spectrum between dependence and independence. Leaving out BDSM considerations for a moment, as human beings start out, we're, of course, highly dependent. As we develop we learn and explore independence, and tend to live -- once mature -- interdependent with others to varying degrees.

BDSM, particularly the D/s facet, rather inherently encourages the submissive to dependence. That might be in a situation for a fixed duration -- tied to the bed the sub is dependent while restrained, obviously -- or if part of a relationship can extend into the rest of the sub's life. The extreme would be "gimp in a box" as an example.

In what I would term a "good D/s relationship" the relationship is healthy and interdependent. The sub is certainly going to be more or less toward the Dependent end of the spectrum. (Which does not, necessarily make the Dominant more Independent, but that's a different topic.)

"Codependent" twists the interdependence of healthy relating into something else. It happens in vanilla too. How I'm going to describe it is not going to be complete. The short "answer" is find "12 Questions to Determine if you're in an abusive relationship" online somewhere. The things those questions target? That's the short list of things that codependent people do. The relating tends to be more manipulation and transactional in subtle ways than inter-relating.

The shaping and molding, as I see it is the stuff of healthy interdependence, stronger and more overt, and probably overtly uni-directional, but likely bidirectional more subtly.

Hypothetically? If I submit to a Dom/me and it's grounded in my connection to the whole person? My submission is grounded in value and respect for the Dom/me. I trust, and there's interactions I want where the Dom/me "shapes and molds me to their desire and will". Probably a complex mix of conscious and unconscious stuff. Some of it of the "You inspire me to be better." variety. Some perhaps more whimsical. Some of it clearly communicated and overt "You need to be more attentive to me and my needs and desires. To encourage that ...." and all sorts of things can happen from formal training to subtle ques to positive and negative reinforcement.

But the core of it is that that's usually pretty up front. Or should be. As we say, there is negotiation, communication, and clear consent. Even if we miss some of that, in an interdependent situation, I'd be pretty free to say to that Dom/me "Hey, this seems to be what's going on. Is that what you're doing?" and we could talk about it. No harm, no foul.

Codependence ... Have you ever seen _The Secretary_? Their relationship? Codependent. Little clear communication. Each manipulating the other. Topping from the bottom, bottoming from the top. The remarkable thing in that movie is that they achieve a symbiosis.

Sometimes it's more one sided. Sometimes it's the camel under the tent. Sometimes it's the chef boiling the frog.

For myself? What I've experienced? "Oh, I'm not going to train you. You need to be an adult and pay attention." If that starts getting paired with avoided or vaguely answered questions, odd and random micromanagement called "training", fault finding, discipline? Setting me up to fail? (Bottoming from the top. Dom/me wants corporal so habitually sets up "impossible" tasks to provide an excuse to "punish".) And if those things are not negotiated? Not consented to? Or what was negotiated is twisted into something else?

Now it's in the territory of codependence.

Sorry for the length. I'll be blunt though. Most folks who do what we do tend to have issues around this and trauma. They tend to run together. I've noticed it, but don't take my word for it. Quite a few therapists point to it, and not as simply as "You were spanked as a child so ...."

When I really paid attention? At the back of an interesting book called _slavecraft_ there is an afterword by Pat Califia. In which they bluntly state something to the effect of (what follows is my paraphrase) "... what it is that we do is inherently codependent. To a degree that we would probably do better as a group if we all looked into at least a bit of ALANON or CODA."

And, yes, it can get very destructive. Particularly if you're looking to be shaped and the Dom/me is unconsciously manipulating and you're interpreting that as Dominance.

To me, D/s, and shaping and molding as a part of that dynamic, is an expression of the nature of opposites attracting and bonding. i can find some understanding from an artistic point of view. The famous Michelangelo quote resonates with me:

"“The sculpture is already complete within the marble block, before I start my work. It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material.”

i've also read comments from artists along the line: "the stone tells me what to do."

To me, the implication is the sculptor does not make or create, but sees and exposes what is there. i don't think it a perfect analogy because i do not think humans ever reach an end to the sculptor/sculpting process, or reaching that end is death and/or experiencing the process is living.
i think one of the major challenges of D/s is achieving and maintaining balance motion, what i see you calling "interdependence." i think it's more of an ongoing ideal we aspire to than a static state we reach and never depart from. i see it as experience/s we are looking to achieve. Symbiosis is how i see it too.

To extend the analogy (loosely lol). The D does not say: "hey, i want a David, i think i'll sculpt one." Rather, a D needs/wants a David, and looks for that stone in which a David already exists. That stone has to speak to Them as part of that process of finding and exposing. i see it, ideally, as an ongoing "interdependent" process.

@tallslenderguy

Excellent analogy. As a blacksmith (Yes, really. No I don't shoe horses. Yes, I do gear, but it's not my main thing. No, not really a job but more than a hobby. And I will not make you a sword: I prefer to make useful things.)

... I'm kinda in the world of sculpting. And I've had the privilege of hanging out with sculptors at work (a pair of long stories ... you see there was this coffee shop in Japan ....) ... so ... resonance.

I'll extend beyond the David.

Part of why I do this and I'm still hopeful of Someone, Someday ... is that part where the Dominant might think they're looking for a David. They might see the David in me that I can't see. I might see the Parthenon Athena in them they can't see.

There is a sense of midwifery to stone, metal and people.

More. In the sculpting? The Other might realize that while they wanted a David, and they thought they had Davidstone, what's coming out is someone else. And they like that too. Maybe better. And vice versa.

Which is why some refer to D/s as "dynamic".

I've also noticed a thing. First when I was hanging out with sculptor's on a mountain in Japan, and could do that for days so I soaked in some things. "It's interesting how the stone and the tools have sculpted you." was something I said to one. Because it was clear from the decades of hammer and chisel, the hands were shaped to the tools. He grabbed my right hand, separated the middle finger where it's a bit misshapen at the tip from years of holding pens and pencils. "You sculpt paper with a chisel too, and it's shaping you."

The tools, the material, and the work shape the artist too.

The Tao of D/s.