RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property?

RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (Full Version)

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

Message

SirJohnMandevill -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 3:56:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TemptingNviceSub one must throw out the Knight in shining armor, who draws out his sword to protect the damsel in distress...and it is farcial(sp) to expect such..Tempting The Divine Ms. T. does have a point. Certainly, I'm no knight in shining armor atop a noble steed. All I have is a tin hat and a mule. And I might draw my "sword" for a damsel, but...well, use your imagination. The kind of strong, intelligent submissive woman I seek probably would be quite able to defend herself. I would do everything in my power to help her address whatever problem was plaguing her if she asked. Call it protection, love, whatever you choose. I'll be there for my submissive if/when she needs me as a "protector." Les (who lives in Far Far Away Land)

sambamanslilgirl -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 4:39:41 AM)
mine are very protective however they know (up to a certain point) i can handle things myself. if i'm ever in situation that i think i cannot handle, that's when they'll step in.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 6:30:17 AM)
quote: Because during the safeword discussion you expressed an established principle that those things which cannot guarantee prevention (and let's face it, no Dominant can do so) are worthless and even dangerous because they give the misperception of such a guarantee. Ah, now you interject "guarantee" into the mix? Where in "Completely and without qualification" is there any guarantee implied? I wouldn't think that you, of all people with your strict dictionary definitions and concern regarding the legal enforcement of of things such as 'contracts', would assume an extra word is implied to a sentence or have 'guarantee' as a definition of 'responsible'. Also, maybe you need to read the OP question again. It was Master responsible for the welfare of their property. You are wrong about my position. I'd agree that a Dominant has no such responsibility. Pay attention to the words John. I can't believe that with words so important to you, not just for safety bur clarity, that you interchange and have no distinction between Master and Dominant? You interchange them in your response. Was than for convenience too? Yes I say a Master is responsible for the welfare of their property. I alway have and always will. But I don't provide any guarantee or warranty. I'm responsible, but things happen. I prefer and accept that responsibility. It's consistent in the belief that reliance on a safe-word abdicates that responsibility and is yet another reason I do not use them. It's also good to see that your agree with me regarding safewords and Masters quote: And yet no Master can offer a genuine guarantee to prevent any harm, any more than a safeword can guarantee the prevention of harm. Exactly! Safe-words are no "guarantee" for safety. Therefore advocating that people don't play without them is bad advice.

Rover -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 7:24:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Yes I say a Master is responsible for the welfare of their property. I alway have and always will. But I don't provide any guarantee or warranty. I'm responsible, but things happen. I prefer and accept that responsibility. And what is "responsibility" if not an implied protection? Or is responsibility for safety one of those qualifications you claim do not exist? May I remind you that you stated your responsibility to be: quote: Completely and without qualification Now you're admitting that it's incomplete, and qualified. Saying that you're responsible but there are no guarantees is a qualification... and is incomplete. And it does contradict your portrayal of your responsibility as complete and unqualified. It's ok to be inconsistent, Merc. We all are when it suits us. Just don't bore us with false inferences that these are principled positions of yours when that is patently false. quote: It's consistent in the belief that reliance on a safe-word abdicates that responsibility and is yet another reason I do not use them. You must also abdicate responsibility to beth, and others she encounters during her day. You rely upon beth being responsible for herself at all times, since all the responsibility you can possibly muster cannot overcome another person's irresponsibility (short of tying her to the bed each time you leave the house... but then there's the chance of fire and that would be irresponsible). And you rely upon others around her to be responsible (responsible citizens, gun owners, drivers, store owners, airline pilots, etc.) as well. It is utterly inconsistent to state that safewords are dangerous because they cannot guarantee protection and they abdicate responsibility, and then claim some reliance upon the storybook notion of Master as responsible "completely and without qualification" when it's obvious that responsibility is neither complete nor without qualification. But as I stated earlier, we are all inconsistent from time to time (I dislike peas but love pea soup... go figure!!). It's just that most of us don't try to paint them as "principled" positions. quote: It's also good to see that your agree with me regarding safewords and Masters quote: And yet no Master can offer a genuine guarantee to prevent any harm, any more than a safeword can guarantee the prevention of harm. Exactly! Safe-words are no "guarantee" for safety. Therefore advocating that people don't play without them is bad advice. You saw in the safeword thread that I agree safewords are no guarantee of safety. Things happen, even when you're trying to be responsible. But then, you know that because you said so yourself: quote: I'm responsible, but things happen. And just because things do happen, and there is no guarantee, that is no reason to advocate that Masters are dangerous. No more than it makes any sense to advocate that safewords are dangerous because things can happen in spite of them as well. Yet you have the "principled" position that it's ok to have a Master despite the fact that things happen, but it's unsafe to have a safeword because things happen. Yeah, very principled. John

juliaoceania -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 7:57:34 AM)
Here is the thing, if one is completely responsible without qualification for another human being, then if that said human being is hit in the head while visiting a shopping mall by a loose piece of masonry, then I suppose the mall is not responsible or liable for that injury. I am just saying, if the slave's master has taken complete responsibility, does it absolve all others of responsibility for their actions if something happens to the slave?

celticlord2112 -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 7:58:51 AM)
quote: In my opinion, if one takes on the life of another as property, they should take on a very aggressive role in the protection of said property. The dominant should take on a mature role in the protection of said property. You do what you must to keep the slave safe, but not at the expense of the slave's personal growth and development.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 8:00:03 AM)
When do you two get to the debating point about how many angels dance on the head of a pin?

celticlord2112 -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 8:14:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Here is the thing, if one is completely responsible without qualification for another human being, then if that said human being is hit in the head while visiting a shopping mall by a loose piece of masonry, then I suppose the mall is not responsible or liable for that injury. I am just saying, if the slave's master has taken complete responsibility, does it absolve all others of responsibility for their actions if something happens to the slave? There is a worthwhile distinction to be made between accountability and responsibility. Responsibility, as the word is generally used, indicates one has a duty of care--to keep the bad actor away from the slave, or to keep the slave away from falling debris. However, everyone is accountable for the choices they make, the actions they take, and the consequences that arise; the slave will endure needless injury if she walks carelessly under loose masonry, and the store owner will endure litigation and personal expense for the medical care of the slave if he fails to maintain his property.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 8:14:42 AM)
John, Responsibility reflects consequence. I accept the consequence. I know you don't and feel that safe-words suffice and abdicate. It isn't qualified responsibility, it is the exact opposite. It doesn't end with results that are unexpected. I have no responsibility placed on beth or anyone else - its mine. I know you can't accept that for yourself. I don't think you are weaker for that position, just different and not wanting similar responsibility. All you need to find is a partner who wants the same. It shouldn't be a problem. A Master's responsibility may be your "story" but for me its the way we live; including consequences. The danger is when you build in an excuse, like safe-words, to shirk that responsibility. It gives you a path to walk away from the consequence. You need it - I don't. The difference has no impact to me. I'm sure it has no impact to you. As stated, I am responsible for beth's daily activities. I am responsible for her at all times even when I'm not there. I've provided her one of the safest cars. Don't have her working outside the house. I have security and a gate around the property. All that I can do I do. That is representative of my responsibility. Accepting the pragmatic - it doesn't fully protect her, but it is as far as I can go right now. It provides no guarantee, but at at least backed away from that previously represented position that responsibility applies a guarantee. I'm glad you know you were wrong in that. I have no idea where you got the position that I thought "Masters are dangerous". I would think they are if they claim to be a 'master' yet put equal responsibility for consequence on their 'submissive' but, unilaterally, no it is not my belief that "Masters" aren't dangerous; safe words are. Yet my 'world' still turns with disagreement without even a speed bump. I hope yours someday can be the same. There is no need for you to agree with my principles. I have no problem with yours. However I will never cater to your version of the "one true way". Succinctly as possible, "Completely and without qualification" represented my responsibility. It does NOT point to the consequences of how that responsibility is manifested. It comes with no guarantee or assurance of safety. Debate any tangent, feel free to apply any assumption. It's very clear and principled to me and beth; and that is the only importance. It represents no 'dogma' but 'Mercnbeth' dogma. I leave the one true way dogma to others better qualified, informed, and vastly more experienced with long term relationship dynamics. That's way beyond the scope intended by the one sentence which generating your response.

juliaoceania -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 8:33:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Here is the thing, if one is completely responsible without qualification for another human being, then if that said human being is hit in the head while visiting a shopping mall by a loose piece of masonry, then I suppose the mall is not responsible or liable for that injury. I am just saying, if the slave's master has taken complete responsibility, does it absolve all others of responsibility for their actions if something happens to the slave? There is a worthwhile distinction to be made between accountability and responsibility. Responsibility, as the word is generally used, indicates one has a duty of care--to keep the bad actor away from the slave, or to keep the slave away from falling debris. However, everyone is accountable for the choices they make, the actions they take, and the consequences that arise; the slave will endure needless injury if she walks carelessly under loose masonry, and the store owner will endure litigation and personal expense for the medical care of the slave if he fails to maintain his property. In a court of law, when one is involved in a civil action, the term that the courts use when bringing down a verdict is "responsible". A person is found to be responsible for the damages in a case, not accountable.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 8:37:02 AM)
quote: In a court of law, when one is involved in a civil action, the term that the courts use when bringing down a verdict is "responsible". A person is found to be responsible for the damages in a case, not accountable. Exactly. Liability arises from the duty of care.

HalloweenWhite -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 8:47:24 AM)
I've -always- been under the impression that ownership equals responsiblity, no if ands or buts. Am I wrong? seriously, I'd like to know.

Rover -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 8:54:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth John, Responsibility reflects consequence. I accept the consequence. Actually, consequences are but one thing to be responsible for. If your responsibility is "complete and without qualification" as you have asserted, then you're responsible for far more than that. You're responsible for everything (that is complete and unqualified). You're responsible for the hot stove she burned herself on, for the other driver that rear-ended her, for the tire that goes flat, for the icy storefront sidewalk she slips and falls on. You're responsible for her safety, for her moods, for her emotions, for the unhealthy food she sneaks when you're not around, for her every action. That's complete and unqualified. Consequences are just the by product. quote: I know you don't and feel that safe-words suffice and abdicate. No need to falsely state my position. I copy and paste your statements so as not to misquote you. Please have the courtesy to do so as well, but do not persist in making things up (that's called "lying" where I live... you should be more responsible than to engage in that behavior). quote: It isn't qualified responsibility, it is the exact opposite. It doesn't end with results that are unexpected. I have no responsibility placed on beth or anyone else - its mine. I know you can't accept that for yourself. There are people who have claimed responsibility for Jon Benet Ramsey's death. And some of them probably really believed it when they confessed. And I have no doubt that you have convinced yourself of the authenticity of what you say about your responsibility being "complete and without qualification". Problem is, like John Mark Karr, nobody believes you. It's provably false. quote: I don't think you are weaker for that position, just different and not wanting similar responsibility. All you need to find is a partner who wants the same. It shouldn't be a problem. Let's call a spade a spade, Merc. You purport to be responsible, and responsible people don't speak from both sides of their face. You do perceive yourself to be superior... and not just to me. You imply it regularly in posts that you write, even stooping so low as to infer that you're superior by virtue of having a slave. You haven't forgotton those posts, have you Merc? quote: A Master's responsibility may be your "story" but for me its the way we live; including consequences. The danger is when you build in an excuse, like safe-words, to shirk that responsibility. A safeword shirks no responsibility. It's a communication device. Portraying yourself as being responsible "completely and unqualified" shirks responsibility itself... the personal responsibility that every partner must have in order to fulfill the expectations and direction of their partner. quote: It gives you a path to walk away from the consequence. You need it - I don't. The difference has no impact to me. I'm sure it has no impact to you. It gives me a path from storybook concepts to the reality and practicality of life. Some folks need the storybook more than the reality. And that's fine, until such time as they portray it as reality. quote: As stated, I am responsible for beth's daily activities. I am responsible for her at all times even when I'm not there. I've provided her one of the safest cars. Don't have her working outside the house. I have security and a gate around the property. All that I can do I do. That is representative of my responsibility. Actually, that is representative of precautions... kinda like having a safeword. Helping you to fulfill your (limited, by necessity and reality) role as "protector". I could say that it's representative of shirking your responsibility onto the car maker, the security agency, the gate and manufacturer, etc. But that's no more true than falsely claiming that safewords shirk responsibility either. See, that's the difference between a principled position and one taken out of convenience or the motivation of appearance (gee, you don't seem like the insecure type but you sure do go out of your way to remind us about how Domly you are....). quote: Accepting the pragmatic - it doesn't fully protect her, but it is as far as I can go right now. It provides no guarantee, but at at least backed away from that previously represented position that responsibility applies a guarantee. I'm glad you know you were wrong in that. Complete and unqualified responsibility does require a guarantee or it's neither complete nor unqualfied. What is wrong is to continue to suggest that you (or anyone) is or can be responsible "completely and unqualified". quote: I have no idea where you got the position that I thought "Masters are dangerous". But you must think they are dangerous, if your position on safewords is a principled one. You state that safewords offer no guarantee, and shirk responsibility. And it's been shown that Masters provide no guarantee, and must (by necessity) rely upon the responsibility of others. So a principled position would require you to also believe that Masters are dangerous. Are you that principled? I thought not. quote: I would think they are if they claim to be a 'master' yet put equal responsibility for consequence on their 'submissive' but, unilaterally, no it is not my belief that "Masters" aren't dangerous; safe words are. Yet my 'world' still turns with disagreement without even a speed bump. I hope yours someday can be the same. I have no idea what this passage is supposed to mean, other than you're professing some other superior quality that must give you some level of satisfaction. quote: There is no need for you to agree with my principles. I have no problem with yours. However I will never cater to your version of the "one true way". In order to agree or disagree with your principles, you must first have them. Thus far, they are not in evidence. quote: Succinctly as possible, "Completely and without qualification" represented my responsibility. It does NOT point to the consequences of how that responsibility is manifested. Lemme see... that would be a.... qualification? quote: It comes with no guarantee or assurance of safety. Lemme see... that would be... another qualification? quote: Debate any tangent, feel free to apply any assumption. No assumptions, just your own statements. quote: It's very clear and principled to me and beth; and that is the only importance. It represents no 'dogma' but 'Mercnbeth' dogma. I leave the one true way dogma to others better qualified, informed, and vastly more experienced with long term relationship dynamics. That's way beyond the scope intended by the one sentence which generating your response. Not worth commenting upon. John

Mercnbeth -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 10:00:56 AM)
quote: You imply it regularly in posts that you write, even stooping so low as to infer that you're superior by virtue of having a slave. You haven't forgotton those posts, have you. You do perceive yourself to be superior... and not just to me. There is nothing implied. Any post is a statement of fact. To understand it may require a baseline of equal perspective that can't be conveyed completely by words and sometimes when it gets to that point, I suggest that our dynamic is better illustrated through direct observation. I don't know the perspective of all that post, and no amount of reading will ever provide complete insight. You feel a different perspective is "superior" and shouldn't be considered - so be it. But that interpretation comes from you. Superiority is your perception. Sorry John, your inadequacies, shouldn't be caused from your feeling inferior. I don't require anyone follow. "...and not just to me."; implies you need to find support in consulting with others about me? I'm honored, but again any inferiority is self perceived. I seek no validation from anyone. You do, or "not just me" is a reference to undisclosed multiple personalities. I'm sorry but I don't want to and have no need to join your group and have no need to qualify whether it or you are superior or inferior to anyone - especially me. quote: Actually, consequences are but one thing to be responsible for. If your responsibility is "complete and without qualification" as you have asserted, then you're responsible for far more than that. You're responsible for everything (that is complete and unqualified). You're responsible for the hot stove she burned herself on, for the other driver that rear-ended her, for the tire that goes flat, for the icy storefront sidewalk she slips and falls on. You're responsible for her safety, for her moods, for her emotions, for the unhealthy food she sneaks when you're not around, for her every action. That's complete and unqualified. Consequences are just the by product. Agree I am responsible. Any quote of mine to the contrary? I'll give you a real case example. beth has broken feet. They were broken when I met her. It is a congenital defect. Currently she has a broken bone that has to be removed by surgery. It's my responsibly to deal with those consequences. Your point? quote: No need to falsely state my position. I copy and paste your statements so as not to misquote you. Please have the courtesy to do so as well, but do not persist in making things up (that's called "lying" where I live... you should be more responsible than to engage in that behavior). More simple than you are making it John. I don't use safe-words, you do. We both are engaging a partner who wants "a severe spanking". We end up using the same 2 inch thick wooden paddle, I see blood and because I know her and know that she hates blood I stop, talk to her and consider changing the intensity. You don't have the need because you put the responsibility in the safe-word instead of yourself. That is how I define them, and 'masters' using them as dangerous. "I thought you would use your safe-word"; translated means - don't hold me responsible and you can't rely solely on me, because I'm partially relying on you. No problem with it and those using such a technique. Won't try and disqualify them from any "Old Guard - One True Way" status if that's important to them; but I'll personally never shirk that responsibility. Feel free to do so and good luck with that! quote: you sure do go out of your way to remind us about how Domly you are....). Really? You take posts reflecting how I live as representation of being 'Domly'? Again - I'm honored although never an intended goal. quote: In order to agree or disagree with your principles, you must first have them. Thus far, they are not in evidence. Well then it should be pointless for you to try an debate them. Obviously your detailed reply indicates otherwise. Feel free to continue to make challenges to principles that you claim don't exist. Your own efforts indicate how you don't believe your own statement. quote: quote: It's very clear and principled to me and beth; and that is the only importance. It represents no 'dogma' but 'Mercnbeth' dogma. I leave the one true way dogma to others better qualified, informed, and vastly more experienced with long term relationship dynamics. That's way beyond the scope intended by the one sentence which generating your response. Not worth commenting upon. Why not John? The reality is it is the ONLY thing you've been commenting upon. I don't qualify it. I don't consult or have it validated by others so I can say; "...and not just to me." Nothing I've ever posted was directed or reflected anything other than how I and beth live. You can believe it wrong. I can believe you wrong. Being right doesn't require agreement from you, or your consulted constituency. BTW - Do you periodiacally check in to make sure no one has changed their mind? Your one true way and the referenced "and not just to me"s may find it reprehensible, but it has no impact or legitimacy in my household. I would hope that you and consultants can live with that. If not - sorry. But please pass on my regards to them and let them know that I would never have my principles, which you find so challenging and subversive, imparted upon them. I only ask for the same consideration. Then again not getting it - won't change a thing.

juliaoceania -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 10:26:40 AM)
quote: More simple than you are making it John. I don't use safe-words, you do. We both are engaging a partner who wants "a severe spanking". We end up using the same 2 inch thick wooden paddle, I see blood and because I know her and know that she hates blood I stop, talk to her and consider changing the intensity. You don't have the need because you put the responsibility in the safe-word instead of yourself. That is how I define them, and 'masters' using them as dangerous. "I thought you would use your safe-word"; translated means - don't hold me responsible and you can't rely solely on me, because I'm partially relying on you. No problem with it and those using such a technique. Won't try and disqualify them from any "Old Guard - One True Way" status if that's important to them; but I'll personally never shirk that responsibility. Feel free to do so and good luck with that! I would not want a partner that was unwilling to rely on my communicating to them. If I was involved with someone who thought that they were the only arbitor of what I found distressing, and what I found painful.. up to and including blood play, that would make me feel endangered in their control. That way would not work for me, and it would make me feel very unsafe and unprotected. Anyone that was unwilling to allow me to be somewhat responsible for my own well being would not have my well being at heart... because at the end of the day a person must be responsible for themselves. Even literal slaves in historical context were responsible for their own behavior, and safety. To think otherwise is rather silly and fantasy based in my opinion.. and it can even be dangerous. A master that does not teach a slave how to defend themselves, how to protect themselves, and when it is appropriate to make decisions to protect themselves is in my opinion not doing their property any favors... But that is just our way, other ways will differ

antipode -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 10:59:43 AM)
If it is blackmail , stalking, or similar harassment, it goes to law enforcement, just like it does in a vanilla relationship.

RoughFN -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 11:11:12 AM)
What's with all of this debate and need to qualify statements with things like "you should protect her, but not limit her growth!" does this all really need to be said? I'm completely responsible for the safety and well being of my dogs, too. I keep them safe, I make sure they're well taken care of, I make sure they have a safe, healthy environment and their needs are met. They're still expected not to get into trouble, and they get yelled at when they do (or rescued, as the case may be). If I'm out walking them and a chunk of concrete falls on one, you can bet that it's the building's responsibility for that act. They're still liable. I take care of my wife, too. And my slave. This isn't some knight in shining armor riding in to save the day, it's being a responsible adult looking after his property. I don't understand what this big leap to assuming grandiose dragon slaying and such is about.

BitaTruble -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 11:26:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sammiebabygirl In my opinion, if one takes on the life of another as property, they should take on a very aggressive role in the protection of said property. Thoughts? jen I absolutely agree! It's not just the big stuff either. In our relationship, there's a lot of little things he does to protect me as well. For example, when we walk the dog together, I have a standing rule to walk so that he's always nearest the street. He has me go first onto escalators so he can catch me if I fall. He sits with his back to the wall when we go out so he can be the first to see if there is some danger coming our way, takes my arm when we have to cross the street (very important when it's so icy in these parts!) Additionally, he protects not just my physical health, but my mental and emotional health as well and I am required to do what is within my ability to keep his property safe as well (stay focused while I'm cooking so I don't burn myself, take my meds as required, watch where I'm walking so I don't trip, etc.) Eh, it gives me the warm fuzzies. What can I say? ::grins:: Celeste

AquaticSub -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 11:29:52 AM)
quote: More simple than you are making it John. I don't use safe-words, you do. We both are engaging a partner who wants "a severe spanking". We end up using the same 2 inch thick wooden paddle, I see blood and because I know her and know that she hates blood I stop, talk to her and consider changing the intensity. You don't have the need because you put the responsibility in the safe-word instead of yourself. That is how I define them, and 'masters' using them as dangerous. "I thought you would use your safe-word"; translated means - don't hold me responsible and you can't rely solely on me, because I'm partially relying on you. No problem with it and those using such a technique. Won't try and disqualify them from any "Old Guard - One True Way" status if that's important to them; but I'll personally never shirk that responsibility. Feel free to do so and good luck with that! That's like saying "Because you have a fence around your house, you don't think anyone would ever try to break in". Having a safe word doesn't remove responsbility nor does it mean the dominant/master in question isn't going to do exactly what you described: Stop and talk if they see something going on that they know would bother the submissive/slave. That may be how some people use a safeword, but some people also don't buckle their lifejackets when they go boating. That may be how you view safewords but I know, for an undeniable fact, that not every dominant/master uses a safeword in that manner. Having seen it and experienced it personally, you might as well be telling me elephants don't exist.

FRSguy -> RE: Are Masters Responsible for the Welfare of Their Property? (1/11/2008 11:35:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sammiebabygirl I am asking this question after reading Prinsexx's post on blackmail. She is being blackmailed and harassed to the point of it being criminal, by a man claiming to be a Dom. I asked her what her Master is doing to protect her and she responded, basically, that he has been a wonderful sounding board. In my opinion, if one takes on the life of another as property, they should take on a very aggressive role in the protection of said property. Thoughts? jen I would have to say that the protection and welfare of my girl is one of the most basic but important rolls that I play. I think without her having the feeling of being protected and taken care of the whole dynamic of the relationship would be somewhat compromised.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875