RE: I'm completely devoted, but... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Submissive



Message

Sub03 -> RE: I'm completely devoted, but... (1/11/2008 10:55:22 PM)

If my Master told me to do it I would do it...easy as that. When I agreed to be his I agreed to let him make all the decisions and if he gives me an order I follow it. I don't get to pick and choose which orders I want to follow and which ones I don't, what would be the point in that? Would he ever actually order me to vote a certain way? I highly doubt it. But if he did...I would.



tinoketsheli -> RE: I'm completely devoted, but... (1/12/2008 12:27:27 AM)

I havent read through all the posts so i am sorry if someone already said this

There are many different lifestyle's within this lifestyle. Submission is something that comes in many different forms, it can be giving up everything for your Dom/me or giving that person sexual dominance only in bed or laying down a contract so dominance can be had over a restricted number of things. Is submission truly any less special if it is one of these forms vs another???
So I am addressing your "what are we submitting?" question. Honestly it is an individual and private decision that is dependent upon the individual couple. My Dom and I act completely equal towards each other about 70% of the time where as you are (I could be wrong and I am sorry if I am) 100% submissive to your Dom. It is just a different relationship with different dymanics.
So because my Dom does not chose who I vote for, it does not make me any "less submissive" than anyone else on these boards. It is just an aspect of our relationship that works for us.



quote:

ORIGINAL: hisannabelle

greetings all,

if slavery isn't about the dominant being the one with the power to make decisions, then what exactly is it about? i don't completely agree with roughfn's posts, but i think he has a point when he says, "what are we submitting?" i don't understand what the point of submission is if we're not submitting to control other than our own. i can have a vanilla relationship and retain control over my decisions.




KnightofMists -> RE: I'm completely devoted, but... (1/12/2008 10:34:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subantionette

If you are fully immigrated, then u should be allowed to vote. Im Canadian and im pretty sure u should be bale to vote. I know this was off topic but it just sort of struck me.


Geezz you Canadian and therefore you are somehow know what a person should or shouldn't do?

well I am also Canadian... and guess I am not so smart since instead of speaking out my ass.  I refer to what Immigration policies exist in Canada.

Landed Immigrates cannot vote... only individuals who hold canadian citizenship can.  Landed Immigrates do not hold canadian citzenship and therefore can not vote.  Landed immigrates are fully immigrated and hold the rights and responsibles of any canadian citizen except a few things.

check out this web page and maybe you can speak about something you know instead of something you think you know.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/newcomers/about-pr.asp#lose_status



Kitte9 -> RE: I'm completely devoted, but... (1/13/2008 11:24:36 AM)

quote:

You do not have the right to give them control of others without their consent.

I believe it comes down to this - He has the right to control ME. By voting for a candidate, I am choosing a person that will (one hopes) make laws that will touch the lives of OTHERS. This makes telling me how to vote an order outside the realm of His authority. These "others" (citizens) have given each of us 1 vote. To change that system (give Him 2 by giving Him mine to control) without the consent of the parties involved would be, in my opinion, wrong.





VERY well said. A point I had not considered. Thanks for the enlightenment.



Sirsinini -> RE: I'm completely devoted, but... (1/13/2008 1:19:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RoughFN
~~snip
Extrapolating, how many of the slaves here would get really pissed off if their master ordered them to do something outside of a bdsm context like this? And, likewise, how much of a contradiction is this compared to him making all of the decisions?
~~snip


Several things occured to me as I read the orignal OP.
 
I make my own choices, for the most part, and some are made after a discussion with Sir.
Not every relationship that is D/s is considered BDSM only. And labels are only labels.
 
With that said, because I dont have as wide a data bank as my Sir does, there are countless times I go to him about issues totally not related to BDSM.  Is that not what a relationship is all about?

Politics is a subject I gave up on long ago.  Politics in the health care profession is as far as I go in regards to politics.
So yes, I am going to discuss with Sir who he votes for and why and probably vote his way.  He will have it all thought through and I can rest assured that the choice he makes is solid and in my best interest too.
 
Being pissy about a decision Sir makes that is in the best interest of humanity or for us is not something I am about to do.  Discuss with him yes, if I had some reason to have him explain himself (which by the way, I am allowed to do; I know some girls are not allowed), only becasue I know I havent the foggiest notion about alot of things...not like him anyway.
 
and I am completely devoted property  [:)]  Inini



amaris -> RE: I'm completely devoted, but... (1/13/2008 10:11:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Statepalace

I believe it comes down to this - He has the right to control ME. By voting for a candidate, I am choosing a person that will (one hopes) make laws that will touch the lives of OTHERS. This makes telling me how to vote an order outside the realm of His authority. These "others" (citizens) have given each of us 1 vote. To change that system (give Him 2 by giving Him mine to control) without the consent of the parties involved would be, in my opinion, wrong.



This is an excellent argument, and articulates my belief perfectly, thank you.




DesFIP -> RE: I'm completely devoted, but... (1/14/2008 3:59:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

~ Fast Reply ~

Anyone else find it as interesting as I do to note that the only exclusionary (Bigoted?) references are from those saying that they wouldn't consider anyone 'republican' or 'conservative'. Never recall in this, or any other thread, where a similar exclusionary reference was made pointed to those identified as 'liberal' or 'democratic'.

As a devote pragmatist with an insatiable desire to learn I'm beginning to wonder if its a function of the insecurity and lack of confidence in their philosophy or if 'open minded' and 'liberal' are mutually exclusive.

When I was searching or when contemplating adding another - consideration if the person is Marxist, Maoist, or member of the John Birch society wouldn't be in the top 1000 of factors considered.


My religion, my political views and my moral values are intertwined. As we have seen with the incumbent President, non Christians in his view are second class citizens. I do not choose to live with and raise my ums with people who consider me, and them, as subhuman because we are of a different religion.

Republicans today are much more extreme than they were in my youth. Nelson Rockefeller was a Republican governor of NY for several terms. His views would today be considered by the present Republican party as dangerously liberal.

I would not ever expose my ums to people who are John Birch Society members, anymore than I would deliberately expose them to any other bigot. I've dealt with anti-Semites unfortunately but I certainly couldn't respect one nor live with one. I find someone who considers me because of my religion as open season for indignities to be disgusting. I find people who attack others solely on the basis of sex, religion, ethnic background, age or gender to be offensive. And I will not have my ums exposed to that even casually if I can help it. Certainly I would not choose for them to be exposed to such poisonous sentiments every hour of every day.



Mercnbeth -> RE: I'm completely devoted, but... (1/14/2008 7:45:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

~ Fast Reply ~

Anyone else find it as interesting as I do to note that the only exclusionary (Bigoted?) references are from those saying that they wouldn't consider anyone 'republican' or 'conservative'. Never recall in this, or any other thread, where a similar exclusionary reference was made pointed to those identified as 'liberal' or 'democratic'.

As a devote pragmatist with an insatiable desire to learn I'm beginning to wonder if its a function of the insecurity and lack of confidence in their philosophy or if 'open minded' and 'liberal' are mutually exclusive.

When I was searching or when contemplating adding another - consideration if the person is Marxist, Maoist, or member of the John Birch society wouldn't be in the top 1000 of factors considered.


My religion, my political views and my moral values are intertwined. As we have seen with the incumbent President, non Christians in his view are second class citizens. I do not choose to live with and raise my ums with people who consider me, and them, as subhuman because we are of a different religion.

Republicans today are much more extreme than they were in my youth. Nelson Rockefeller was a Republican governor of NY for several terms. His views would today be considered by the present Republican party as dangerously liberal.

I would not ever expose my ums to people who are John Birch Society members, anymore than I would deliberately expose them to any other bigot. I've dealt with anti-Semites unfortunately but I certainly couldn't respect one nor live with one. I find someone who considers me because of my religion as open season for indignities to be disgusting. I find people who attack others solely on the basis of sex, religion, ethnic background, age or gender to be offensive. And I will not have my ums exposed to that even casually if I can help it. Certainly I would not choose for them to be exposed to such poisonous sentiments every hour of every day.


Don't know what the "John Birch Society" has to do with this quote; "Well, I wouldn't get involved with a Republican or Conservative to begin with." I didn't know that to be a conservative and republican required membership to JBS. I think it bigoted, or at minimum prejudicial to assume so.

I find being with bigoted people intolerable in all cases; whether anti semitic, anti-conservative/republican, or anti-Islamic, anti-socialist. Happy to debate and argue differing opinions. A persons political or philosophical beliefs has no bearing. If I have one intolerance its pointed to blind ignorance. 

PS - Nelson Rockefeller was considered a Democratic/Republican back in the day. Not that that was wrong. Rudy Guilianni was similarly considered, when he ran for major of the City; he was backed by both parties. You can't be a 'Goldwater Republican' and win a State level political job higher than dog catcher in New York.

PPS - John F. Kennedy's views if posted today regarding US defense, smaller government, and monetary policy would be considered Republican.

What to either have to do with exclusionary, close mindedness regarding an individual you are meeting with a relationship as a goal?



juliaoceania -> RE: I'm completely devoted, but... (1/14/2008 8:42:28 AM)

When it comes to making friends, and accepting people as they are, I think you are right.... it is prejudiced to judge someone because they say they are "Republican". It is intolerant. I try not to do it myself. I am not perfect though, and like everyone else on planet Earth I am at times intolerant and prejudiced. Anyone who says they are not is a liar in my eyes. I have just studied the topic too often for them to convince me that they are Gandhi (and even he would have told you he could be intolerant and was always trying to be better than he was in that regard). Intolerance is just a part of the human condition. It is what we do about it that defines us.

So, I will say, you are right... it is intolerant to have preconceived ideas about ANYONE for ANY reason. I will also say that when it comes to picking out mates being intolerant of those things one does not want is a GOOD THING. If people know what will make them happy, why shouldn't they seek it? Is someone who is turned off by fat women intolerant? Is someone who is turned off by short bald fat men intolerant? Is someone that prefers blondes to redheads intolerant? Am I intolerant because I prefer intelligent men in my age range that share my core values and political ideology? You see, when pursuing my personal happiness and fulfillment in a relationship when I was seeking I was not afraid to be intolerant, judgmental, prejudiced, or any other sort of qualifier. I like men my own ethnicity for example because that attracts me. If that makes me intolerant to some people, who the fuck cares? I am just being me, happy as a lark, doing what turns me on, trying not to hurt other people in the process.

There have been many threads in which people bemoan others because they can't find people to share their kink, I suppose all of us that do not want to share that kink are intolerant because we will not serve as their toilet, or are not bisexual, or into poly. If we expand your "tolerance", everyone should mate with everyone else. It doesn't matter if we share kinks, political ideology, lifestyle desires, religion, socio-economic backgrounds... we should all be blind to any sort of criteria that might help us pick a mate, because if we don't do that we are "intolerant".... sorry, I don't buy that.



girlserveshim -> RE: I'm completely devoted, but... (1/14/2008 8:49:17 AM)

IF Master asked this of me, I would do it. I do not have any choices, only the choice to serve him or not (this would be a permanent decision I could not take back). I can always express my opinion, but the final say is up to Him. That is what TPE means to us.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625