Yet another thought provoking and moving post from CoyoteToo. I swear, some days I wonder is this man the only male-identified dominant writing about their emotional journey on the net? Seriously, if you know of another, please clue me in the comments here. :-)
Anyway, he posted something today and you should read all of it here.
But the part that poked a hole in the dam on my stream of thought was this:
Despite the pain. Despite the self-doubt. He must carry both pain and guilt together; they are one. That is the responsibility he took on when he entered into the relationship. If the relationship is to continue he must heal their shared pain the only way possible; by proving to himself, and to her, that Trust is justified; that he still deserves to be her Master.
Masters are people, too. People fuck up. Masters arenâ€™t super(ior) beings; they are simply people who have taken on a certain responsibility.
So you fuck up, and yes it sucks.Â But to assume the full brunt of the duty for â€œfixing itâ€ does a disservice to the parties involved in the relationship.
This is not to excuse the responsibility of the master to Address, Assuage, Apologise and Advocate.
- Address the misstep
- Assuage the fears and reactions
- Apologise, SPECIFICALLY, for the error.
- Advocate for a behavioral shift that will help a repeat of the situation.
The slave / submissive has responsibilities, too.
To communicate the hurt. To listen for the apologies, to accept them, to truly forgive, and to re-direct the discussion if forgiveness is not forthcoming. And to accept the terms of forgiveness and to self-advocate, too, so that all involved parties can â€œmove on.â€
For the master who understands the value of trust, yes, the act of emotional violation is painful. And, I believe, that is as it should be.
Both master and slave have protocols behind which they can â€œhide,â€ but I suggest protocol is merely the platter on which the meat of the relationship is served. Without protocol, youâ€™d still have the meat: messy, oozing, and hard to handle, but it is still there. Protocol gives you a place from which to consume the meat of the interaction.
To use protocol as a defensive mechanism is a medicine best taken judiciously.
Protocol can become a prison in which all those involved are, unhappily, trapped.
A fuckup doesnâ€™t make one unworthy of trust.
It makes one human.
Letting the fuckup run the game CAN erode trust.
Abusing trust makes one unworthy.
Using human weakness as an excuse for continued, repeated fuckups is damming.
But does being human make one unworthy? Nah. Not in my book.
Hereâ€™s the thing. (And this might sound like heresy) The submissive / slave also has the ULTIMATE say on whether the master / owner is â€œworthyâ€ to own them.
Removing yourself, as a master / owner, because of YOUR perceived faults does a disservice to the dynamic you are working to create.
It is not just for a master / owner to remove themselves from the presence of their property in such a way as to cause damage.
Before any owner assumes that they â€œarenâ€™t worthyâ€ I firmly believe a check-in is in order.
This is akin to the people who do the whole â€œIâ€™m not good enough for you. You can do better. Youâ€™ll be happier without me.â€ Thing which I consider â€œShenanigansâ€ and â€œChickenshit Tacticsâ€ to put it mildly.
In the situation as outlined by CoyoyeToo, however, it is evident to me, based on what he has generously shared, that they ARE talking thought this particular transgression, and that is a remarkable thing to be able to â€œsee,â€ if only from a distance.
I, for one, am grateful to see this being shared.
Thank you again, Coyote.