RE: Slaves who are subs (Full Version)

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



Message

Leatherist -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 5:58:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leatherist

Have you actually BEEN in a tpe relationship-or are you just another "theorist"?

I wanted to go there too.  I figured it would be too easy just to lie and say, "Yes."  But, yeah, it's time to stop the angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin vocabulary words horse hockey.  I see nothing to demonstrate the OP can convince another human being to follow his lead.  And that is what matters, not "being right."



I'd like to hear him detail about how these thoughts and methods worked with him with an actual woman-and not the blow up doll he keeps in the closet.



ncprincess -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 6:10:40 PM)

Do you mean Rush Limburg?? I've never been compared to him before. lol
And, no, I'm not telling you my condition. I love how you assume it's just a bad experience with anal and a wannabe Dom though....speaking of which... I'm good at sensing those wannabes.....*smiles very sweetly*



Missokyst -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 6:11:18 PM)

LOL I really need to stop reading you guys when I am drinking something.
Kyst



Kirata -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 6:20:25 PM)

Philosopher,
 
You have a clear distinction in your mind when you speak about a slave versus a sub. I think clear meanings are important. To accept that everyone gets to define what being a slave means 'for them' is to deny the word a commonly understood meaning, which renders it useless for communcating anything.
 
However, there is an arbitrary element in the distinction you draw. You make the defining cut at a slave obeys, no limits, period. But that's not the only way to slice it. The word slave can also be defined in terms of status. Making the defining cut on the basis of status does not carry the requirement of conformity to some particular notion of defining behavior.
 
For example, to introduce you to my girl by saying she is my slave conveys her status to you. You can fairly expect there to be common elements in the behavior of slaves, obedience certainly one of them. But my slave does not cease to be a slave when she has a bad hair day, or because there is something she cannot bring herself to do. She is not "not being a slave" at those times, or "not a slave" because of them. She is simply being a human one. 

Kirata
 

 



laura2161 -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 6:23:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Philosopher13

My only point in making this post was to give potential slaves something to read about to give them insight into me and what I am about. Additionally it was to scare the living shit out of any submissive or submissives that call themselves slaves, so they will steer far far away from me. Thanks for the help all of you folks, it was sincerly appreciated.

Gregory
"One man with courage is a majority" Thomas Jefferson


Haha. Simply priceless.

I'm sure you scared them so bad they are just quivering in their shoes.

Unbelievable.





ncprincess -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 6:27:14 PM)

Frightened me so badly I started to cry...



Philosopher13 -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 6:39:14 PM)

http://fetlife.com/users/19168/pictures
Since collarme wouldn't allow pictures.
Now put up or shut up. My guess will be shut up considering what most of you wanabees would only have owner operator pictures.

Gregory
"One man with courage is a majority" Thomas Jefferson



Leatherist -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 6:42:28 PM)

I don't see you in any of the pictures.



GreedyTop -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 6:44:11 PM)

I don't see what the pictures have to do with the topic here. so what..you know a chick that likes to be folded in half and get stuff shoved inside her... big whoop.



Leatherist -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 6:45:27 PM)

I have pictures of girls I have played with in the act as well-does that mean I get  to call myself  "certified tpe master" too?



ModeratorEleven -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 6:46:50 PM)

Settle down, folks.

XI



ncprincess -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 6:48:25 PM)

wait.....to prove we are really who we say we are we should post bondage/lifestyle pics...*runs to get the digicam and my barbie dolls*



Kirata -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 6:52:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Philosopher13

My only point in making this post was to give potential slaves something to read about to give them insight into me....

Well oops! I should have read the intervening posts. I didn't realize this was some guy's Personals ad. 
 
I need a beer now.
 
K.
 



tsatske -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 7:17:16 PM)

My basic answer is the one you get alot - people have the right to decide how THEY will use the language, in the way that resounds with them, and it is priggish of you to try to dictate to them that they should only use it YOUR way, and, in addition, it will not get you far, socially.
To you, clearly, a slave can only exist if they are owned by a Master. So, what is a submissive person, who is unowned, who has a slave's heart? If you are searching for a potentail slave, what language would you approve of (and I am not very big on the whole Lingua BDSM thing, anyway, and don't much give a hoot what those who have placed themselves on that commitee think), for an unowned submissive to let you know that she might be open to an M/s relationship, instead of a less TPE one? what should she call herself?
Furthermore, to speak from a place I have been in my life, though, by the grace of everything good and holy, no longer am - what do you call a woman who submits to her partner EXACTLY AS MUCH AS HER TOP PARTNER DESIRES - though this is far less than she would perfer to submit and far less than total? If she would be best suited to a TPE, but finds herself in a loving relationship where far less is required or desired of her, how do you get to decide that she 'can not' call herself a slave? She is giving all that is asked of her, and stands ready to give anything.
A slave pleases her Master. It is that simple. If He wants no control, less control, more control, all control - TPE, micro managed, regardless - what she calls herself seems to me to be very little of your concern.

People use the language that resonates with them. When trying to get to know someone, talk to them about what varoius language means to them, and your mind will be opened expotentially, to great effect. Telling someone who may or may not call themselves 'slave', when they are not Yours, is simply silly. It is no differant than vanillas who wander on here and explain to us all that slavery is illegeal and that 'volentary slavery' is an oxymoron that can not exist - so we better all stop using a word that they define in a way that does not include our definition. Are you going to stop using the word slave for them? Of course not = the word resonates with you, means something to you, speaks to you, is important to you. What gave you the idea that you could tell other people how to use language is something i will never understand, out of any of the quartzillion people who attempt to do it.
It is the most base, baldest type of censorship. Control language and you can control the mind. Words mean things - but they mean things to humans, to our complex brains, in these systems called nuero lingistic programing. I don't owe the dictionary a damn thing, it is not my Master, nor anyone elses. If you can appoint yourself the keeper of the dictionary, you go along way to something even stronger than brainwashing, in controlling the thoughts of others. I find it ludicriux that some people believe they are entitled to that kind of control of people they don't even KNOW, much less have a relationship with.

and, btw, cucumber was only a bad choice becuase, on various net boards (not this one), cucumbers are traditionally the top half of the equation - the Dom, Master, Top, ect.



BitaTruble -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 10:21:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Philosopher13

Determining compatiblity is not a negotiation its just learning about one another and deciding if a relationship is in the picture or not. When I lay out my philosophy about limits and boundaries and she says she cannot live within those rules all discussion stops. So where is there a negotiation?


Sure sounds like negotiating to me. A) slave says - Here's what I'm willing to do. B) master says - here's what I require. How is that 'not' negotiation even if it leads to the determination that two paths are not meant to cross?

quote:

I am the dominant party is a M/s relationship, I am not using the term Master to define myself.


My mistake. I thought you had stated such in an earlier post. My apologies for misremembering your words.


quote:

I guarantee you have not experienced every concievable idea out there no one has.


Failing to experience every concievable idea out there is not the same as having a fear. I'd tred really carefully with this one because you are completely clueless as to what I've experienced. From what I've seen of your pics on FetLife and given that you have limits listed in your profile that would immediately dismiss you as any sort of potential master for me, you're much to tame for my taste.

quote:

To say you have no fears is to say you are not human. I also didn't say that it was all inclusive of the relationship but I would welcome a challenge like that any day, talk about a barrel of monkies someone who says they are fearless[:D] PLEASE!


There are certain things I don't like, but I have no fear of them. I would love for someone to be able to come up with something that would cause the thrill of a fear factor. It's been a few decades since I've gotten those goosebumps that go along with being afraid, really afraid, of someone or something. What, exactly, did you have in mind.. and I really hope you have an answer because that's a thrill in itself .. trying to come up with something that I haven't already participated in. I saw the pics on Fetlife .. I hope that's not the stuff that you're calling scary because, dude, serious yawns, m'kay?



quote:

I happen to be partial to M/s and so with that being said I feel it is best thing out there. What is wrong with believing in and standing behind what you preach?


Absolutely nothing wrong with it unless and until you try to force feed it down the throats of other people. I'm rather partial to M/s myself having been involved with the practice for most of my adult life.

quote:

I know it isn't for everyone and not even possible for everyone. My folks have been happily married in a puritanical relationship for almost 50 years and my grandparents made it to 70 years and I know this wouldn't work for them but what they have and had did work for them and more power too them. If people would take time to educate themselves we wouldn't be having this discussion. Because calling yourself a horse doesn't make you a horse if you are a cow.

Gregory
"One man with courage is a majority" Thomas Jefferson


You have this kink thing going on with trying to label people as if they are inanimate objects or unreasoning animals. I'm not getting the distinction when you are of the belief that you can turn a switch or dominant into a slave but not a submissive because of their (in your view) particular mindset. It's an incongruity that I can't wrap my head around. Your response about power leads me to believe that you think that slaves lack that particular characteristic. I'd wager you haven't been exposed to all that many slaves if that's your thinking. Slaves can carry every personality type extant just like anyone else. To believe otherwise is narrow minded at best or simply born of ignorance of all the possibilities. 




ModeratorEleven -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/8/2008 12:01:33 AM)

Ok, after a fair bit of cleanup, please consider this your last collective warning.  Play nice or play somewhere else.

XI



Lynnxz -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/8/2008 2:46:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Philosopher13

http://fetlife.com/users/19168/pictures
Since collarme wouldn't allow pictures.
Now put up or shut up. My guess will be shut up considering what most of you wanabees would only have owner operator pictures.

Gregory
"One man with courage is a majority" Thomas Jefferson


Wait...
I'm willing to bet I've got you beat on number of pictures. What I'm confused about is the connection between kinky pics... and the "realness" of someone's relationship. Actually, I think there may only be about 3 or 4 of me taken by the man whom I'm in a relationship with- and none of them are kinky. He just simply doesn't get the bug to whip out the camera when we are fooling around... something about being distracted?



tsatske -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/8/2008 5:48:31 AM)

quote:

I can't help but wonder if the community (again, such as it is) would benefit in some ways if those of us involved were able to reach some sort of consensus on what it is each of us are in terms of how we relate to our BDSM counterparts. It would be tough to argue that, right now, there's an awful lot of confusion, hostility and misunderstanding within the ranks.


It is true that there is sometimes a lot of hostility, although I can't say that I have ever understood why.
My personal definition of what it is to be a slave is not that far from the OP's (though my attitude is), and I have gotten into arguements here on CM defending those choices.
OTOH, I feel very strongly about the 'no one true way' thing, and very strongly that people have the right to create the life that works for them, and that includes using language that resonates with them. I have gotten into arguements about THAT on my slave group. Certain words are not allowed - like 'negotation', or 'limit', ect. Using them in a way that works within this particular dynamic is still not welcome - those words are off limits.
Why do people expect that BDSM will come up with 'official defintions'? Noplace else in life has. Anytime I sit down to play a board game, for instance, I ask my fellow gamers what rules they wish to follow. Yes, there are rules in the box - but, before we start playing, i check to see if they are in the habit of devating from some of those. Mostly that's okay with me. Idon't care what 'house rules' you use in monopoly, for instance, as long as i know when we start to play. I am a serious Scrabble player, though, and in that case, I want to play by the rules - ALL THE RULES.
My family owned and managed rental property when I was growing up. Trust me, out there in the vanilla world, there is not a 'general agreement on what words mean'. Let's look at some actual conversations my father has had, for examples:
Dad: "Okay, when you asked if you could have a dog, I said you could get an indoor dog."
Tenant: "We plan to keep him indoors."
Dad: Deep, cleansing breath. "What I meant by 'indoor dog' was, since you rent an apartment with a total of less than 200 feet of floor space, you might want to choose an animal with an expected adult wieght of less than 200lbs. a pound per square foot somehow seems exesive."

Tenant: "If we buy the paint, can we paint the living room?"
Dad, every time he was asked this question AFTER these people: "I need to see and aprove a paint chip."
Dad, learning the hard way, the first time he was asked, "As long as it's not ugly."



tsatske -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/8/2008 8:12:04 AM)

And here's a question i have always had: (and understand this question is coming from a slave, but, still, it does bother me):

why are people forever getting on this kick, 'how dare that woman, who is clearly a sub, call herself a slave?'

If you ask them if they consider a slave to be superior to a sub, they will say, no, no - just differant.

And that is true. I know many Dominant men who do not want a slave in their life at all, who are only willing to talk to subs, not slaves - but they must often talk through word meanings, just as we are talking about here.

But, yet, while those bringing up this canard always say slaves are subs are 'simply differant', not one superior at all - you notice, no one ever starts a thread yelling about women who are clearly slaves, but who insist on calling themselves a sub?



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/8/2008 8:31:56 AM)

The problem occurs because you have a personal expectation of what a slave is, and there are some that do not meet that. Until a community can decide and accept on the use of a term, there will always be miscommunication. I suggest that rather than complain about it, just dig deeper into what the slave views the term "slave" as. Many different definitions out there, so it takes more communication to have a meeting of the minds.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Philosopher13

Greetings,
I have been here for a bit now and have noticed a plethora of subs calling themselves slaves. I realize different folks have different ideas of what and how things work but to me a slave is the submissive party in a M/s relationship and a M/s relationship's core premise is centered around TPE,  the slaves complete surrender to the Master. So what gives?

Gregory
"One man with courage is a majority" Thomas Jefferson



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875