RE: On dissing submissives

RE: On dissing submissives (Full Version)

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

Message

EvilGenie -> RE: On dissing submissives (1/5/2008 9:04:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominaSmartass quote: ORIGINAL: EvilGenie I have seen that of which you speak Ron Lol :) Tightropes is indeed using Ron's patented and copyrighted avatar but it's not him. Way too young and un-crotchety sounding. ;) The ''Ron' was pure sarcasm. Perhaps tight didn't get it either. [:D]

celticlord2112 -> RE: On dissing submissives (1/6/2008 9:31:04 AM)
quote: The sub's only value is to worship and serve the domme, often as nothing more than an errand boy, if that. As to the possibility of sex (albeit often an ill-defined term in the post), don't even think about it. Why? Not because the domme is married is has one or more other sexual relationships or liaisons, but rather, as one domme put it, because "slaves and submissives are unworthy of that kind of contact." No doubt the submissive is merely an object. Well, no, worse than that, as we all know that dommes often use objects of one kind or another for sex. Like you, I prefer a more symbiotic view of slavery--I lead, my slaves follow, but each in our way serves the greater relationship. However, I have observed that many people derive a curious comfort from being "unworthy"--and not just in TPE relationships. Consider that the Calvinist theology of the New England Puritans during the 17th and 18th centuries was predicated on a very similar perspective (read Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" for a sense of the Puritan view of mankind). If whole religious movements can say such things about themselves, it is hardly surprising the occasional dominant will echo such sentiments about submissives.

DominaSmartass -> RE: On dissing submissives (1/6/2008 9:37:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EvilGenie quote: ORIGINAL: DominaSmartass quote: ORIGINAL: EvilGenie I have seen that of which you speak Ron Lol :) Tightropes is indeed using Ron's patented and copyrighted avatar but it's not him. Way too young and un-crotchety sounding. ;) The ''Ron' was pure sarcasm. Perhaps tight didn't get it either. [:D] Haha, I see now. If you had put Ron in quotes or something I would have gotten it. I totally thought you'd just breezed through and assumed it was Ron cause of the avatar.

LoveAndDS -> RE: On dissing submissives (1/6/2008 9:39:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tightropes As I peruse posts, ads, profiles and the like of dominant women on collarme, AOL, and other sites, I am constantly struck by the number who diss submissives, dismiss slaves, and make it very clear in their written words that the person they are seeking is worthless, worth nothing, unimportant, insignificant, and of no value. Well, almost of no value. The sub's only value is to worship and serve the domme, often as nothing more than an errand boy, if that. As to the possibility of sex (albeit often an ill-defined term in the post), don't even think about it. Why? Not because the domme is married is has one or more other sexual relationships or liaisons, but rather, as one domme put it, because "slaves and submissives are unworthy of that kind of contact." No doubt the submissive is merely an object. Well, no, worse than that, as we all know that dommes often use objects of one kind or another for sex. No doubt there are some males who want a connection with a domme holding the views I've described above but I seriously wonder how many males do in actuality, as opposed to getting excited at the prospect but not actually wanting to be held in such utter contempt in a real life situation. I'm not here to begrudge those on either side of the aisle who want that kind of a connection. But I must say that I find such views of male submissives thoroughly unattractive other than in wet dreams. I am far more drawn to a dominant woman who sees the domme-submissive connection as a symbiotic relationship. To be sure, she is in control and may have a very strict, sadistic nature, but she also recognizes that the relationship is not solely about her. What are others' views? Some people view subs and slaves as objects instead of what they really are, People. I know that a lot of people go overboard with this lifestyle because of the shit they see in the porn movies and read in the crazy magazines, books, etc... And they forget about the person kneeling in front of them, and how much this means to them. They see a servant, or a hole to fuck, and not someone giving everything they have. Just make sure that your with someone who knows and understands that there's someone alive under the skin of every beautiful submissive and slave

EvilGenie -> RE: On dissing submissives (1/6/2008 10:13:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominaSmartass quote: ORIGINAL: EvilGenie quote: ORIGINAL: DominaSmartass quote: ORIGINAL: EvilGenie I have seen that of which you speak Ron Lol :) Tightropes is indeed using Ron's patented and copyrighted avatar but it's not him. Way too young and un-crotchety sounding. ;) The ''Ron' was pure sarcasm. Perhaps tight didn't get it either. [:D] Haha, I see now. If you had put Ron in quotes or something I would have gotten it. I totally thought you'd just breezed through and assumed it was Ron cause of the avatar. I know, after I read what you said I thought,,,,,,,,,,,danm I should have put that name in bold or something! I know Ron's posting style very well and his screen name. I was trying for a, now obviously, failed attempt at mirth. [:D]

DominaSmartass -> RE: On dissing submissives (1/6/2008 3:05:08 PM)
quote: I know, after I read what you said I thought,,,,,,,,,,,danm I should have put that name in bold or something! I know Ron's posting style very well and his screen name. I was trying for a, now obviously, failed attempt at mirth. [:D] Still waiting for Ron to come through this thread. Guess it's not going to happen.

HouseDV8 -> RE: On dissing submissives (1/6/2008 6:47:38 PM)
i have the same perspective of this, and i believe it is an expert one, as i do on several of the other threads on here. It is very simple to tell which comes first because this is not "chicken and egg" this is supply and demand. Those profiles exist because of the outrageously HIGH...not rare at all, number of "submissive" men out there that want exactly that. The thing is, they want it for fantasy...meaning role-play online, phone sex, or seeing a professional. Sure, they would LOVE it if some woman came into their world that was totally willing to treat them like utter garbage for a short period of time...basically until they cum, on occasion, and demand nothing else from them...but that really is the fantasy isn't it? Dominant Pros are happy to accommodate, whether or not that is how they would choose to engage in a relationship that was not professional, because they are being paid. So are phone sex operators. The ones that will cyber are not women. The number of men that want to live that way real-time, long term, well, that might be rare, but it certainly exists. i know a lot of people and i cannot think of a single monogamous couple with a Fem Dom like that. i can, however, think of several poly relationships like that. In other words, i don't think it is a safe assumption...monogamy that is. It seems like many of these replies are assuming monogamy because they say they cannot imagine a woman wanting to have that kind of relationship...that most would prefer a more interactive and symbiotic relationship, but in this lifestyle we can have both and then some. The opinion that subs are not worthy of sexual interaction is also a result of the supply and demand. It comes from the pro domination community. In that community the popular opinion is that there should be no sexual interaction with a client. In truth, they really only mean actual sex...they commonly engage in all kinds of activities that are sexual and sexually arousing and fulfilling, including face sitting, fisting, strap-on play, forced masturbation, foot worship, etc. But, if you ask a pro Dom, none of that is sex. So you see...they are only unworthy of the actual pussy, and that is because a "real Domme" in the eyes of the pro's, would never engage in sex with her sub. This has a lot more to do with establishing "no sex" as a rule than with how popular it is to want to be treated that way. Legally, as well as in terms or reputation, most pro Dommes want this point clear. Either way, it still comes back to fantasy. This is a fantasy of so many men that it has become a very common and very popular "spin" for pro Doms. It is also a very popular line to take if you are wanting to cyber sex or do phone sex and you don't care that it will be with another man. I know this might come as a shock to some of you, but a lot, and i really do mean an awful lot, of profiles they are written as women are actually men! Those of us deep in this leather community know that tons of subs out there are used as sexual property, male, female, and tranny.

Leatherist -> RE: On dissing submissives (1/6/2008 9:59:46 PM)
I believe that the disrespect is usually applied to the class of men known as "wankers". And probably with good reason.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.4052734