RE: Collaring for Subs Only?

RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

MasterFireMaam -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/10/2007 8:33:26 AM)
It sounds like you might be questioning if his level of commitment is the same as yours. Talk to him. Find out what the collar means to him. Tell him what the collar would mean to you. THEN you can decide. I forgot to add: I wear a collar, of sorts. At one time, my girl and I had matching necklaces. hers was a collar to me, mine was a collar to the Universe (which is part of my calling of Mastery). My chain broke a while ago and so now I have it on a different chain, so our collars no longer "match". It doesn't really make a difference whether they do or not. We know their meaning. But, I secretly "dig" the whole "matching" thing. ;-) And, I actually understand about the rings. For some of us, they have more symbolic meaning than others. They had a huge meaning for me...and not much of one for my second husband. Pissed me off, too. Master Fire

CuriousLord -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/10/2007 8:59:09 AM)
To me, it really sounds like you two want different things. He wants to the the Dom in a Dom/sub relationship. You want a husband, and perhaps a top in bed. While you two sound like you care for eachother, and your roles aren't complete opposites, I'm not sure if they're compatiable desires. The ring & collar thing. I think this is one place the two different expectations come through. A Dom isn't normally marked. A husband, on the other hand, normally is. You don't sound like a sub to me. You sound like a vanilla woman who can enjoy rougher bedroom play who is with a Dom.

Celeste43 -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/10/2007 9:44:05 AM)
You need to talk to him about this. I would suggest that your hatred for being dictated to came from the fact that your natural submissiveness was not discussed in your marriages, and instead of being appreciated by either of your exes, they took you for granted. In theory, that should not happen in a d/s relationship simply because it is sought after and talked about. He wouldn't think of you as an unimportant doormat when he's spent three years searching for a person like you. Instead, if he's smart, and doesn't want to have to start up all over again, he should treat your submission with respect instead of disrespect. He also needs to know that he should be very vocal with appreciation, affection and affirmations to help you feel more comfortable. You need to tell him what you need, he isn't a mindreader. As far as equal symbols, he probably won't want to wear a necklace with a key on it to match your necklace with lock. But he might be willing to go for a tag for his key chain that says D while you have one that says s, or whatever else you decide on. In the meantime, you can start with something less conspicuous such as an anklet. You might feel that it would mean more if it was private rather than an announcement to the world. As far as my collar, the play collar gets used just for play, the rest of the time I wear a silver chain with an unusual heart pendant on it and he is always pleased as can be when someone comments on it. He is eager to be associated with me, doesn't ignore me at a tableful of friends or any of the disrespectful treatment I received during a vanilla marriage with a man that mistook submissiveness for no self worth.

HardnRuff -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/10/2007 10:01:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Caius Actually, I apologize, HardnRuff. Perhaps I was the one who could be better decribed as tactless in this case. I simply meant that you used a very specific approach with a narrow intepretation of the meaning of the collar when you analyzed her problem. But nothing inherently wrong with that, and after reviewing your wording I can see "tactless" is defintely not the right word. Thank You Caius ..

chellekitty -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/10/2007 10:45:52 AM)
FR... 1) collars mean whatever they mean to you and personally i like the symbolism of a collar more than the actual piece of jewelry around my neck, because i have acidic skin and it will eat thru anything i have on my neck for any extended period of time - gold, silver, leather, etc...my first M/s relationship is still marked on my by a tattoo that has meaning to it (not just his name, which would really suck now cause i am no longer with him) but it doesn't matter if you want to wear an actual collar, a ring, a bracelet, a tattoo or a feathered head dress, if it means something to you, it means something to you... 2) i ocassionally wear a snap on collar that has a tag that says "unowned" on it because a) i like the way it looks and b) it keeps people from assuming that i am free to be randomly available for service or groping or whatever...people see a collar and go, wait, caution, she is not free for the taking, or if they actually take the time to read my tag (WITHOUT touching it) that i am available at my discretion for certain things... 3) the majority men didn't even recieve wedding rings prior to WWII....by several websites claims about 15% of men wore wedding rings prior to the war...and the history of a wedding ring was that it was a mark of ownership...later to become a mark of the husbands financial responsibility...yes today it means, much more than that, on some levels...but back to the original point, it was the exception not the rule that men were monogamous....now in this whole section i have refered to men being the "Dominant" and "free" ones...but i don't assume that now, or even in the past in all cultures, was that the norm...it was just part of Darwinian social standards... TTFN chelle

Missokyst -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/10/2007 11:29:40 AM)
Thank you Rover for pointing out the bottom line. I hear alot of people saying a collar is more significant than a wedding ring, but there is a lot less red tape involved in getting out. And that for me means that marriage is a significant committment (even with the divorce rate!). But I have a question bolded in red below. What the heck is a ceremony of roses?? For me I am either committed or I am not. Is there some significance to this ceremony that has escaped my notice these many years? Kyst quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: HardnRuff A collar IS the signifigance of a wedding ring.Very few things in our lifestyle are any more signifigant if any .It is the outward symbol of a commitment.It marks you as * Property* of another does it not ??It should be worn in pride. What do you think the ceremony of roses Means ?? It isnt a Joke and should never be taken lightly .A collared sub becomes untouchable unless her Dom/ Master gives His permission.A collar is not just a piece of jewelry that comes off.. I prefer a locking collar that Only I have a key to and one for her for emergencies only.. I don't mean to offend you, but this is online fantasy at it's best (worst). A wedding ring means that someone has taken on a significant financial responsibility. When collars include half the house, half the bank account and half the retirement fund, there will be quite a reduction in the number of collars given out. Bottom line is that overall, collars mean quite a bit less responsibility than a wedding ring. On the individual level, that will depend upon what value the participants place in both wedding rings and collars, and how that stands the test of time. John Ahhh... I see it now. It is the online romance bit. Castle realm.. gotta admire them for the persistance in influence. Glad I was already doing this before the infamous Jade. Kyst

Grlwithboy -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/10/2007 11:31:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Missokyst Thank you Rover for pointing out the bottom line. I hear alot of people saying a collar is more significant than a wedding ring, but there is a lot less red tape involved in getting out. And that for me means that marriage is a significant committment (even with the divorce rate!). But I have a question bolded in red below. What the heck is a ceremony of roses?? For me I am either committed or I am not. Is there some significance to this ceremony that has escaped my notice these many years? Kyst quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: HardnRuff A collar IS the signifigance of a wedding ring.Very few things in our lifestyle are any more signifigant if any .It is the outward symbol of a commitment.It marks you as * Property* of another does it not ??It should be worn in pride. What do you think the ceremony of roses Means ?? It isnt a Joke and should never be taken lightly .A collared sub becomes untouchable unless her Dom/ Master gives His permission.A collar is not just a piece of jewelry that comes off.. I prefer a locking collar that Only I have a key to and one for her for emergencies only.. I don't mean to offend you, but this is online fantasy at it's best (worst). A wedding ring means that someone has taken on a significant financial responsibility. When collars include half the house, half the bank account and half the retirement fund, there will be quite a reduction in the number of collars given out. Bottom line is that overall, collars mean quite a bit less responsibility than a wedding ring. On the individual level, that will depend upon what value the participants place in both wedding rings and collars, and how that stands the test of time. John I have never heard of the ceremony of the roses outside the context of a specific website and among devote/es of said website. If I'm missing some key piece of leather history I'd like to be enlightened too.

Lewcifer -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/10/2007 12:18:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BDsbabygirl Now, my Dom wants to collar me and while I thrill at just the idea of such a thing, there's the vanilla part of me that wonders why HE doesn't have something to show he's "taken"; the last time I was married, I actually stopped wearing my wedding ring because my husband wouldn't wear his and I didn't want to be the only one 'marked'. How do I get over this desire to feel equal in terms of showing the world who belongs to whom? I am actually looking forward to being collared but I don't want it ruined because I resent that he has no 'mark' other than hickies (!) Honestly, I suggest you stop worrying so much about "equality" and channel that energy and feistyness into your relationship. Just as with nature itself, life isn't fair and it never will be. Stop pissing against the wind, stop swimming upstream... and begin to enjoy the things in front of you. If you have trouble ascribing to this simple policy, then I suggest you also make sure Y/you both have the same education, work in similar vocations, and make the same income. After all, it's not fair that one should have more than the other. While you're at it, have your ovaries removed... it's not fair you can have babies and he can't. Stop focusing on the petty, else I'll make fun of it reductio ad absurdum.

BDsbabygirl -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/10/2007 11:19:10 PM)
Wow! I had no idea I'd get this many responses! Thanx to everyone who replied...and here is a little more description on our relationship. For the most part, our relationship is vanilla but I do submit quite a bit to him outside of the bedroom. We are currently working on orgasm control and he has me writing a journal. He has also insisted I take vitamins for my health and will tell me when it's time for bed. He knows what kinds of things I will submit to and those that I won't, so I don't think him "pushing" me is gonna be a problem. To be honest, I'm still finding my place and limits as a "sub" but it's been working out wonderfully for us so far. Now, about the collar - to both of us, it's a sign that I am "his", his woman, his charge, his Love. But since my daily collar - which he tells me will have a lock and he'll keep the key - just looks like a choker-style necklace, it won't be clear to the uninitiated. It's also a symbol of commitment. We do plan to marry one day - and will, in fact, be moving in together soon - but I think my Dom is especially interested in my collaring since I am still legally wed to someone else and we can't get married just yet while I can be collared. In my mind, the collar also represents "ownership", though he says he would never dare to think he "owns" me. I guess it's this part that troubles the 'vanilla', gotta-be-equal me. Still, I do feel a lot better about it today. As soon as we get a chance to talk about it, I will ask him to wear something, as well. With our relationship being as it is, I know we can talk about it with no problems. I can't imagine him in a "collar" but I do like the idea of an ID bracelet...

Lewcifer -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/10/2007 11:42:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BDsbabygirl As soon as we get a chance to talk about it, I will ask him to wear something, as well. With our relationship being as it is, I know we can talk about it with no problems. I can't imagine him in a "collar" but I do like the idea of an ID bracelet... Get him a six-pack of Fruit of the Loom underwear. He'll wear it all the time at work, and you'll feel better knowing it signifies He's yours. Silly girl.

Lewcifer -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/10/2007 11:46:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover I don't mean to offend you, but this is online fantasy at it's best (worst). A wedding ring means that someone has taken on a significant financial responsibility. When collars include half the house, half the bank account and half the retirement fund, there will be quite a reduction in the number of collars given out. Bottom line is that overall, collars mean quite a bit less responsibility than a wedding ring. On the individual level, that will depend upon what value the participants place in both wedding rings and collars, and how that stands the test of time. Thank you for bringing a dose of reality to those who live in purely a fantasy world.

MaamJay -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 6:10:43 AM)
Fast reply quoting Rover quote: ORIGINAL: Rover I don't mean to offend you, but this is online fantasy at it's best (worst). A wedding ring means that someone has taken on a significant financial responsibility. When collars include half the house, half the bank account and half the retirement fund, there will be quite a reduction in the number of collars given out. Bottom line is that overall, collars mean quite a bit less responsibility than a wedding ring. On the individual level, that will depend upon what value the participants place in both wedding rings and collars, and how that stands the test of time. Wow I must be living some online fantasy and never knew it! Because fact is for me, that when push came to shove, my collar to Master meant way more than My wedding ring to hubby who was unable to sub. And my collar to Master now actually means the whole house, the whole bank account and the whole retirement fund ... So, please don't make sweeping generalisations ... it may not mean that much to you ... but it may do to others! At least temper your comments with application to yourself! Maam Jay aka violet[A]

thetammyjo -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 6:44:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BDsbabygirl Wow! I had no idea I'd get this many responses! Thanx to everyone who replied...and here is a little more description on our relationship. For the most part, our relationship is vanilla but I do submit quite a bit to him outside of the bedroom. We are currently working on orgasm control and he has me writing a journal. He has also insisted I take vitamins for my health and will tell me when it's time for bed. He knows what kinds of things I will submit to and those that I won't, so I don't think him "pushing" me is gonna be a problem. To be honest, I'm still finding my place and limits as a "sub" but it's been working out wonderfully for us so far. Now, about the collar - to both of us, it's a sign that I am "his", his woman, his charge, his Love. But since my daily collar - which he tells me will have a lock and he'll keep the key - just looks like a choker-style necklace, it won't be clear to the uninitiated. It's also a symbol of commitment. We do plan to marry one day - and will, in fact, be moving in together soon - but I think my Dom is especially interested in my collaring since I am still legally wed to someone else and we can't get married just yet while I can be collared. In my mind, the collar also represents "ownership", though he says he would never dare to think he "owns" me. I guess it's this part that troubles the 'vanilla', gotta-be-equal me. Still, I do feel a lot better about it today. As soon as we get a chance to talk about it, I will ask him to wear something, as well. With our relationship being as it is, I know we can talk about it with no problems. I can't imagine him in a "collar" but I do like the idea of an ID bracelet... You know he might consider having the key to be his symbol. Given the new information you provided above (which is quite different than the OP in my opinion), that's exactly what Fox and I consider to be my side of his being collared to me. Of course we have multiple symbols too that he can wear, and other than my carrying the key they are all him wearing them. We personally think that supports our authority dynamic but we aren't even slightly vanilla.

Lewcifer -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 9:52:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MaamJay So, please don't make sweeping generalisations ... it may not mean that much to you ... but it may do to others! At least temper your comments with application to yourself! Actually, you're the one making a sweeping generalization... thinking that the exception is therefore the rule. That's not how it works. Support your conclusion with facts. Because, the fact is... there is no legal obligation created by the collaring of someone. The Dom is simply not on the hook financially and legally, regardless of how much spiritual rhetoric is espoused in this thread. Until you can show otherwise, the norm is (and will remain): A wedding ring signifies significant legally enforceable financial responsibility. Therefore, the generalization stands, on its own merits (since the exceptions do not even come close to outweighing the norm). Should you wish to argue differently, please provide solid evidence that, in the majority of the cases, a collar produces these same legally enforceable financial responsibilities.

AquaticSub -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 10:02:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HardnRuff You Cannot base a non traditonal lifestyle on the aspects of what you think is a good vanilla relationship .. It just dont work that way In this world.. Actually.. she can, if her master wants. There are such things as master collars, both for those who want it as a commitment symbol and for doms who like the look of a collar on their neck. To the OP: you can use a ring, a necklace or anything you like a symbol of commitment as long your owner is willing to wear it.

RCdc -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 10:02:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lewcifer Until you can show otherwise, the norm is (and will remain): A wedding ring signifies significant legally enforceable financial responsibility. Therefore, the generalization stands, on its own merits (since the exceptions do not even come close to outweighing the norm). Should you wish to argue differently, please provide solid evidence that, in the majority of the cases, a collar produces these same legally enforceable financial responsibilities. A collar could signify legally enforcible responsibilty - just as much as a wedding ring could - should a person choose either of these options - but it only signifies - both are simply symbols. I could wear a wedding ring and not be married at all. I have been married and sometimes chose not to wear a ring. Not wearing it didn't make the marriage less legal. The only thing that makes it legal, is the legal papers (marriage) themselves. Peace the.dark.

AquaticSub -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 10:04:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HardnRuff A collar IS the signifigance of a wedding ring.Very few things in our lifestyle are any more signifigant if any .It is the outward symbol of a commitment.It marks you as * Property* of another does it not ??It should be worn in pride. What do you think the ceremony of roses Means ?? It isnt a Joke and should never be taken lightly .A collared sub becomes untouchable unless her Dom/ Master gives His permission.A collar is not just a piece of jewelry that comes off.. I prefer a locking collar that Only I have a key to and one for her for emergencies only.. For you it is more important than a wedding ring. Never forget that your way is not the only way, it is not the "right" way and it is not the "true" way. It is only, merely, and just a way. It works for you.

AquaticSub -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 10:05:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: pussinbootz quote: What do you think the ceremony of roses Means I have no idea.. can someone enlighten me? The ceremony of the roses, near as I can tell, was invented by Jade at Castlerealm. John So... why is it so important?

Lewcifer -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 1:01:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark A collar could signify legally enforcible responsibilty - just as much as a wedding ring could - should a person choose either of these options - but it only signifies - both are simply symbols. I could wear a wedding ring and not be married at all. I have been married and sometimes chose not to wear a ring. Not wearing it didn't make the marriage less legal. The only thing that makes it legal, is the legal papers (marriage) themselves. Reductio ad absurdum. A wedding ring is symbolic of marriage. You are using it outside of the generally accepted norm, by stating that someone might wear a wedding ring yet not be married. It is generally accepted, and normative practice, that wearing a wedding ring indicates marriage. In effect, you're simply playing a game of semantics by not adhering to definitions as set forth by commonly accepted practice. When I refer to a wedding ring, I am by commonly accepted inference referring to a legally binding marriage. I had hoped it was not necessary to spell that out. Footnote: Why is it reductio ad absurdum, and an invalid argument? Because, by your same logic, I could follow up your comment that "The only thing that makes it legal, is the legal papers (marriage) themselves" by stating "you're wrong... they're not legal and valid if the person is already married to someone else!" Common and generally accepted norms and presumptions are assumed in an argument, until disproven.

RCdc -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 1:32:50 PM)
Not all marriage is indicated with a ring. Some people wear nothing. Some people use bangles. I know at least two couples who use a collar. One couple of which both have a collar, d and s. Some people are married to more than one, depending on their religion. Even if your not legally married, if you have legal papers indicating wills etc, then people can be 'covered'. Depends entirely who you are with as to what 'the norm' is. Generalisations rarely work - if you want to restrict yourself to them, good for you. Black and white in the world - like perfection - just doesn't exist - thank the godz. the.dark. btw - never said you were 'wrong' - I just gave a different POV.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875