RE: Collaring for Subs Only?

RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (Full Version)

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

Message

ProlificNeeds -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 2:19:27 PM)
Make sure you and he are both clear on what the collar -means- first. If it's going to be a symbolism of full time commitment, ask if he would wear a token from you as well. It could be a ring, a necklace, even just to carry something sentimental with him. Ultimately YOU wearing his collar, if it's in public, symbolizes already they you and he have a deep attachment. Is it perhaps that you don't trust him to fend off unwanted advances? Trust needs to be there, if it isn't fully established, be clear about it. Better to let him know a significant insecurity then have it fester into a secret resentment.

Lewcifer -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 2:32:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Not all marriage is indicated with a ring. I know at least two couples who use a collar. Citing minority exceptions does not change the norm. The normative and traditional practice is to indicate marriage through use of a wedding ring (symbolism). If you disagree with this statement in any way, please state Y/your evidence (beyond knowing two or more couples who don't use rings in the traditional sense) in support of a different majority representing the norm. Some people are married to more than one, depending on their religion. Not legally, they're not. My original words were very clear and concise... "legally enforceable financial responsibility." Explain how someone with an invalid legal marriage (poly) has created "legally enforceable financial responsibility" through the use of marriage (don't quote wills or trust papers, which separate instruments and not germane to the discussion at hand). Even if your not legally married, if you have legal papers indicating wills etc, then people can be 'covered'. The discussion isn't about wills, trusts or other testamentary inter-vivos documents. My argument stands... a collaring does not create any legally enforceable financial responsibility. A marriage, on the other hand, does - in and of itself. Depends entirely who you are with as to what 'the norm' is. Wrong. The norm can be computed statistically, with a valid sample size. It has no bearing on "who you are with." 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. Generalizations which cite normative values (and thus support the norm at the expense of the exception) are prefectly fine. Counter-arguments based on citing the exception rather than the norm rarely work, and are easily defused. The law, when it comes to instilling certain enforceable legal rights on the parties, is black-and-white. The legal ramifications of collaring (of which none exist) are also black-and-white. To prove this point, do Y/you have any doubt that collaring, in and of itself, does not convey legally enforceable rights?

RCdc -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 3:24:25 PM)
I am only going to repeat what I originally said because I do not fall into the catagory of 'lets manipulate what was said to get out of difficult area'. A wedding ring does not signify any more legal enforcement than a collar could if you wanted it to. You just have to communicate it. A wedding ring isnt that which makes things legal - the documents are - and yes, that means the first marriage as legal binding stands. Rings, like collars are simply symbols. And if symbols rock for you, dominant or submissive - thats all cool. For me personally, one is neither more important nor more significant than the other. I completely understand that labels assist in the beginning, but defining further along the line through communication is far more important than a one off statement. But what you state as generally accepted, completely depends on your core 'group' - how you were raised - which country you have grown up in etc. You are speaking most probably (but then I am generalising[;)]) from a westernised, christian fundementalist, stateside view. My life and education is different to yours... is all good. Peace the.dark.

Rover -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 3:25:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MaamJay 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] Jay, please allow me to draw your attention to the following pertinent passages: 1. Stating categorically that collars mean more than wedding rings is the actual sweeping generalization. And I stand by the statement that such a sweeping generalization is an online generated fantasy. 2. Please allow me to elaborate on the following statement I made: quote: 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 What that means is that on the macro level (as it relates to the entire group), collars mean less than wedding rings because they have (much) less responsibility associated with them (as it relates to the entire group). But that on the micro (individual) level "a" (specific) collar may mean more than a wedding ring within the context of a particular relationship. That the relative value of collar vs. wedding ring is not inherent to the objects themselves, but in the value that any specific individuals place upon them. You can relax. No one, least of all I, is challenging the value you place on your collar. It's ok to dislike me for another reason, though. John

Rover -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 3:27:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub 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? Who said it was important? John

AquaticSub -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 3:33:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub So... why is it so important? Who said it was important? John Well, it sounds like hardnruff considers it important [:)] I've never heard of the thing before.

Rover -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 3:42:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub So... why is it so important? Who said it was important? John Well, it sounds like hardnruff considers it important [:)] I've never heard of the thing before. I've heard of it, and even "presided" over several. But it's importance is not historical (as I said, best I can tell it's a modern online creation from Jade), though that should not dissuade those who like the idea from enjoying it. In other words, if you think it's important than it is for you (individually). And if you think that it's silly, it is for you individually. I guess you'll have to ask HardNRuff why he considers it important. John

RCdc -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 3:42:42 PM)
The roses ceremony is simply a symbol....(yay me and the symbolic...haha) Yes, it can be found online like multiple things hey - but it occurs in various different ways - not just the jade realm. Trace it back and it probably evolved from something else. If symbols are a big deal, then this is no different to say - a normal wedding where symbols are present - like the bouquet being thrown, not seeing the bride before the wedding.... the groom waiting and the bride walking down, cakes and babies, not having yellow flowers blahblahblah... all symbolic - and there is half a dozen rose ceremonies in traditional weddings too - and in hindu weddings - well... thats just chocafull... Peace the.dark.

Lewcifer -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 4:00:39 PM)
quote: The ceremony of the roses, near as I can tell, was invented by Jade at Castlerealm. Who said it was important? As a legally ordained minister, I have performed several of these ceremonies in My mind. I have, with [insert Y/your favorite God here] as My witness, bound many couples to themselves without their knowing. My binding, and My secret mental ceremony, are as valid and important as any physical Ceremony of the Roses. Too bad the participants don't realize they're bound to each other, with [insert favorite God here] as their witness! However, after thoughtful prayer [insert favorite God here] has confirmed this was the right thing for Me to do, and that the couples will unite in the afterlife and thank Me. By the way, I am recognized by all the Gods of all religions. I asked them Myself and received divine confirmation to that effect. I have a piece of toast with a god-like image imprinted on it to prove it. My point... I'm not sure I have one. Silly time has set in.

Rover -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 4:12:09 PM)
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with people taking what they like and incorporating it in their life. Even if it's a ceremony. And even if it was made up online. The issue, as I see it, is not to attribute some false historical significance to it. But beyond that, if it appeals to you, go for it. John

PairOfDimes -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 6:08:25 PM)
I think people do collaring as a one-way thing because they want to symbolize possession going one way. I also think that in many respects, BDSM relationships are like non-BDSM relationships. But that's a different thread. Yes, it seems that collaring is usually a one-way thing, likely because that's how people who do it want it. But there's no earthly reason why you can't exchange tokens without having equal roles. Many sets of marriage vows, generally not in use today, bound each spouse with different obligations (husbands to protect and provide, wives to obey and nurture, for example). It could be nice to run a collaring that way, too, recognizing different responsibilities for each partner, but equivalent ones, and in turn, each partner could bear a different symbol. But then again, it seems that you enjoy inequality in an erotic way, not as a way to live outside scenes. I think this is fine, and I think that maybe that's why you're not interested in the one-way ownership that collaring generally connotes. You seem to want a more or less equal relationship in which you submit during sex and playtime, yes? If that's the case, it seems quite reasonable that you would want any commitment ceremony to involve mutual possession and mutual debts. If you want tokens to be exchanged mutually, exchange tokens mutually. Wearing rings (or necklaces, or tattoos, or whatever) doesn't impair one beringed hand from holding a paddle and the other beringed hand from being encased in a bondage mitt. Of course, if you and your dom/partner/whathaveyou have different ideas of ideal relationship and preferred commitment, then you have a different problem. But if you're on the same page, super! Time to play with pretty jewelry!

Missokyst -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 6:15:56 PM)
I think I almost came. Logic.. <swoon> sheepishly sits back down Kyst quote: ORIGINAL: Lewcifer quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Not all marriage is indicated with a ring. I know at least two couples who use a collar. Citing minority exceptions does not change the norm. My original words were very clear and concise... "legally enforceable financial responsibility." a collaring does not create any legally enforceable financial responsibility. Depends entirely who you are with as to what 'the norm' is. Wrong. The norm can be computed statistically, with a valid sample size. It has no bearing on "who you are with."

feelingrisky -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 9:44:24 PM)
I just love these pronouncements.. BRAND HER with an V! She is vanilla! LOL Good thing she has a guy in her life who values her for herself and not the label. shaking head quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord 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.

DominaSmartass -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 10:26:59 PM)
I could go on and on and on in response to some of these replies but I'll just answer the question in the most simple terms. I know several doms who wear something whether it's a bracelet, necklace, ring, or use another symbol to indicate that they are taken. Why not come up with something on your own for your dom and present it to him when he collars you?

robertolapiedra -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 10:28:49 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 (!) Thank you to all who respond. " " Hello BDsbabygirl. There is not set protocol. You "both" decide about "your" symbols. A collar is an "owned" symbol. Your owner may wear a symbol of ownership. It could be a ring (stainless steel is nice), a chain with a key (to your collar?) or a classic tattoo (you could have a matching one too.) Just be creative about what you both want. If this is important to you tell your dom, but I would not mention that you want him to have "something to show that he is taken". Just tell him you want him to show that he is your owner. RL.

MaamJay -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/11/2007 10:56:58 PM)
quote Lewcifer The law, when it comes to instilling certain enforceable legal rights on the parties, is black-and-white. The legal ramifications of collaring (of which none exist) are also black-and-white. To prove this point, do Y/you have any doubt that collaring, in and of itself, does not convey legally enforceable rights? Yes I sure do! The truth is, that in Australia at least because I won't presume to speak for the rest of the world, each state has its own law covering de facto relationships. A variety of terms are used to describe them, including de facto, domestic, significant, caring etc. In the absence of children of the relationship (which effectively decreases the length of time needed to establish that there has been a relationship as it's self-evident), in all but South Australia, after 2 years of being together (S. Aust = 3), each party enjoys basically the same rights as if they had been legally married in terms of splitting assets etc. And these state laws all cover both heterosexual and same sex de facto relationships (except South Australia, they're a little behind the times!). In some states it doesn't even matter if one partner is still legally married to someone else! Now, taken from a legal document, the factors taken into account by the courts to reach a legally enforceable settlement are: the nature and extent of their common residence the length of the relationship whether there is a sexual relationship the degree of financial dependence or interdependence ownership, use and acquisition of property degree of mutual commitment to a shared life the care and support of children the performance of household duties the reputation and public aspects of the relationship So this is certainly a situation where a collar could easily be used as evidence by one party as to the sexual nature of the relationship, the degree of mutual commitment, reputation and public aspects of the relationship, as well as possibly the performance of household duties, and even perhaps, ownership of property! It is true that symbols mean what individuals want them to mean, so then why generalise about norms and disregard someone's lived experience? And claiming anything is black-and-white under the law and not limiting your statements to the jurisdiction you may be familiar with is dangerous ground! Maam Jay aka violet[A]

Lewcifer -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/12/2007 9:28:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MaamJay quote Lewcifer The law, when it comes to instilling certain enforceable legal rights on the parties, is black-and-white. The legal ramifications of collaring (of which none exist) are also black-and-white. To prove this point, do Y/you have any doubt that collaring, in and of itself, does not convey legally enforceable rights? Yes I sure do! The truth is, that in Australia at least because I won't presume to speak for the rest of the world, each state has its own law covering de facto relationships. A variety of terms are used to describe them, including de facto, domestic, significant, caring etc. In the absence of children of the relationship (which effectively decreases the length of time needed to establish that there has been a relationship as it's self-evident), in all but South Australia, after 2 years of being together (S. Aust = 3), each party enjoys basically the same rights as if they had been legally married in terms of splitting assets etc. And these state laws all cover both heterosexual and same sex de facto relationships (except South Australia, they're a little behind the times!). In some states it doesn't even matter if one partner is still legally married to someone else! You've offered no proof of legal ramifications conveyed by collaring. Instead, you've attempted to support your stance by citing domestic partnership laws, which apply with or without a collaring! Cause and effect... false linkage. Again, unlike marriage which in itself creates certain de-facto legally enforceable obligations, collaring does not. Can it be any clearer than that?

MadRabbit -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/12/2007 10:27:18 AM)
What if I were to make all the preparations and draw up all the documents for a marriage for my slave, but were to change the details of the actual ceremony so it was in fact a collaring ceremony and we used a collar instead of a wedding ring?

Lewcifer -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/12/2007 10:44:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit What if I were to make all the preparations and draw up all the documents for a marriage for my slave, but were to change the details of the actual ceremony so it was in fact a collaring ceremony and we used a collar instead of a wedding ring? Well, when dealing with general issues, W/we need to look at the normative values associated with said issues. Let's put Y/your exceptional (in terms of being an outlier and not normative) example to the test... Would Y/you be filing for a [legally binding] marriage certificate? If so, Y/you've performed a marriage, albeit with a substitution of a ring with a collar. Nonetheless, the legally enforceable obligations were created as a result of the marriage per-se (by filing the marriage certificate), not the collaring. Nice try, though!

MadRabbit -> RE: Collaring for Subs Only? (7/12/2007 11:14:55 AM)
I wasnt debating with you really or trying to prove you wrong. Just more making a point...that it was the marriage certificate and not the actual ceremony. Your saying that there is a huge difference between a casual collaring ceremony and a ceremony with a marriage certificate. I agree. Just like there is a huge difference between a wedding ceremony with a wedding ring that my buddies and I performed in my backyard and one with a marriage certificate attached to it. The casual wedding ceremony and the casual collaring ceremony both come with no responsibility recongized by the state. A wedding ceremony with a marriage certificate and a collaring ceremony with a marriage certificate do. Its not the ceremony as it is the legal documents given by the state. This was simply the perspective I was trying to add the discussion, but making an outright attack to try and prove you wrong for the sake of wrongness on these boards. Nice try though at trying to make it look like I was out to get you rather just add some alternate perspective to the issue you were presenting.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.589844E-02