People who don't take care of themselves first require me to take care of them in order to be their friends.
Oooh oooh! Hang on a sec.... *rummage* Aha!
Someone on my friends list wrote a locked post about a situation in which she had neglected her physical needs so as not to displease her (non-24/7) Dom. Specifically, she knew that her blood sugar levels were low, but didn't eat so as not to keep him waiting, figuring it was her own fault for not snacking beforehand. (He had said "Make food for yourself, I'll be waiting when you're done", so she made it and put it away rather than eat, keeping to the letter of the law while--IMO--ignoring the spirit.) After the scene, she passed out.
I wrote an impassioned response that I want to excerpt here, because it says exactly the same sort of thing that I want to say to you, since you seem to regard the world as being 100% people who are dominant over you, or--at best--with whom you are locked in a struggle for dominance. So just replace "your Dom(me)" with "your friend" (or possibly "everyone" or "anyone") as appropriate.
Does it never occur to you that taking care of yourself could be pleasing your Dom(me)? It sounds to me like that needs to be said with a stunning degree of explicitness that bespeaks some internalized discrepancy. Why create this false dichotomy?
Were you and I to play in such a fashion, I would make this clear: I do not expect to have to concern myself with taking care of your needs. That is the whole point of the safeword, is it not? Your needs are yours to speak up about, yours to care for. When I enter into a D/s scene, I and the other person(s) share a mutual concern for the pleasure of whomever is on the D side of the equation. Why on earth should a sub disrupt the pursuit of that pleasure through self-harm? [...]
You seem to assume that in the absence of other instruction, your goal is the Dom(me)'s short-term pleasure; that fainting after a prompt scene is better than taking ten minutes to ensure your consciousness through a much longer one. Where does that assumption come from? [...]
To put it another way, you don't seem to take into account the Dom(me)'s caring for you. This is a pretty serious error, I think. For example, I would be very angry at someone doing with me what you did with him. In essence, you seem to have punished him for not being sufficiently explicit! You failed to consider his long-term desire for your well-being, or the distress that would be caused by your lapse into unconsciousness. Waiting ten minutes for someone to eat is well worth not having to spend ten minutes being frightened and angry when she passes out for lack of food. I would hazard a guess that you were less alert and responsive during the scene, too; definitely a net loss, there.
I've had to learn this lesson myself, mind, from the other side of things; but as others have hammered it into my head, thus do I attempt to hammer it into yours. Damaging or neglecting yourself is no service at all. Literal interpretation is more likely than not to lead to results intended and desired by no one involved. You are valued and cared for, or you would not be chosen for service; you are intelligent and skilled, or you would not be trusted to take on difficult burdens. Treat yourself as valued and cared for, and for heaven's sake, use those brains and skills! Everyone will be the happier and more satisfied for it.
Take care of yourself, Brian. It's your job. You have delicate, one-of-a-kind human machinery housing your intellect. As soon as you turn that intellect to the service of others and they come to depend on you, it's your responsibility to keep the machinery going, both body and brain, so that you can continue to be dependable. Unless explicitly negotiated, Brian-care is not your friends' responsibility, not your hosts', not your partners'. It's yours.
If I don't inconvenience anyone, I won't owe them any favors or recompense. Therefore no one will have an edge or hold on me, therefore I won't have to do anything anyone says. What appears as submission in small things is actually to protect myself from anyone's attempt to dominate me in more important things. In the latter case, I bridle and resort to scorched-earth. In the workplace, politeness and seeming accommodation in small things has led a few people to assume that I'd be a pushover... to their regret, when I then trashed their projects and damaged their careers when they tried to walk over me. One guy in the FAA is still exiled to their Kansas City regional office, 8 years later... ;)
Someone asks for help? Glad to pitch in. Someone tells me to serve? Upraised middle finger. That's a distinction.
You failed to consider his long-term desire for your well-being
Maybe I just don't understand the D/s dynamic in play scenes... but after a scene is over, wouldn't the players just go their separate ways? Why would the D-player care about the s-player's well-being, ten minutes after their session (transaction?) is completed? It sounds like that was the assumption that the s-player made in the example cited, too... afterall, I do not expect to have to concern myself with taking care of your needs ?
Brian-care is not your friends' responsibility, not your hosts', not your partners'
Maybe I just don't understand the D/s dynamic in play scenes... but after a scene is over, wouldn't the players just go their separate ways? Why would the D-player care about the s-player's well-being, ten minutes after their session (transaction?) is completed?
Because the Dom in this case was her boyfriend. Scenes can and often do exist in a much larger context of affection. I think that's the best parallel to your situation, too: with friends, with people who care about you in the larger long-term context, you still do things to damage yourself for their short-term pleasure, and then wonder why they're long-term annoyed or upset.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jay
no subject
Date: 2004-04-21 06:39 am (UTC)Oooh oooh! Hang on a sec.... *rummage* Aha!
Someone on my friends list wrote a locked post about a situation in which she had neglected her physical needs so as not to displease her (non-24/7) Dom. Specifically, she knew that her blood sugar levels were low, but didn't eat so as not to keep him waiting, figuring it was her own fault for not snacking beforehand. (He had said "Make food for yourself, I'll be waiting when you're done", so she made it and put it away rather than eat, keeping to the letter of the law while--IMO--ignoring the spirit.) After the scene, she passed out.
I wrote an impassioned response that I want to excerpt here, because it says exactly the same sort of thing that I want to say to you, since you seem to regard the world as being 100% people who are dominant over you, or--at best--with whom you are locked in a struggle for dominance. So just replace "your Dom(me)" with "your friend" (or possibly "everyone" or "anyone") as appropriate.
Take care of yourself, Brian. It's your job. You have delicate, one-of-a-kind human machinery housing your intellect. As soon as you turn that intellect to the service of others and they come to depend on you, it's your responsibility to keep the machinery going, both body and brain, so that you can continue to be dependable. Unless explicitly negotiated, Brian-care is not your friends' responsibility, not your hosts', not your partners'. It's yours.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-24 11:20 pm (UTC)Someone asks for help? Glad to pitch in. Someone tells me to serve? Upraised middle finger. That's a distinction.
You failed to consider his long-term desire for your well-being
Maybe I just don't understand the D/s dynamic in play scenes... but after a scene is over, wouldn't the players just go their separate ways? Why would the D-player care about the s-player's well-being, ten minutes after their session (transaction?) is completed? It sounds like that was the assumption that the s-player made in the example cited, too... afterall, I do not expect to have to concern myself with taking care of your needs ?
Brian-care is not your friends' responsibility, not your hosts', not your partners'
True. Thanks for the reminder.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-24 11:24 pm (UTC)Because the Dom in this case was her boyfriend. Scenes can and often do exist in a much larger context of affection. I think that's the best parallel to your situation, too: with friends, with people who care about you in the larger long-term context, you still do things to damage yourself for their short-term pleasure, and then wonder why they're long-term annoyed or upset.