RE: Opinons?

RE: Opinons? (Full Version)

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

Message

AquaticSub -> RE: Opinons? (9/28/2008 3:29:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop whats a Prada bag?? A bag that cost too damn much.

WyldHrt -> RE: Opinons? (9/28/2008 8:15:10 PM)
quote: A prada bag is a ridiculously expensive handbag... here's one on sale for $800: I saw a better looking handbag in Tijuana for about $15US. I'll use the leftover $$ for a new laptop [:D]

MadAxeman -> RE: Opinons? (9/28/2008 8:57:04 PM)
*Victoria Beckham is a Prada bag.*

Focus50 -> RE: Opinons? (9/29/2008 2:28:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordSeussMD It has been genetically, sociologically and anthropologically supported that Humans as a species are meant to be a herd(poly) creature and that monogamy is neither natural nor socially sound as the species goes. Seems like only yesterday it was doms who didn't have the psychology to be monogamous - now it's everyone? Kinda puts your credibility in perspective, particularly as man is the only creature who can make life choices as opposed to being guided purely by instinct...! quote: Unfortunately, I am not a forum browser/reader so I won't be following the thread. I do love discussion and any can feel free to mail Me if they have comments directly, although I don't take kindly to flame attacks over expressing My opinion and such mails of that nature will be ignored or reported depending on their severity of tone. I wish all of you a good discussion and I really do think that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and this is My own. I like discussion too, that's why I do come to the CM Forums. But I'll pass on your email invite; I'm waaaaay too canny and contrary to be skipped through your hoops. Out here in public view works for me. Focus.

Focus50 -> RE: Opinons? (9/29/2008 2:38:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gisa I want to thank LordSuess for allowing me to post this. There are many Dominants on this site that are all too happy to share their opinions privately but few have the courage to stand behind it and allow it to be seen publicly. In questioning the courage of "many Dominants", do you mean LordSeuss himself - who has put up 4 whole public posts in 4 yrs of CM membership but has invited any and all to continue this discussion via his private email? Focus.

DesFIP -> RE: Opinons? (9/29/2008 4:56:09 AM)
FR Herd animals are herbivores, we aren't. We are closer to pack animals than herd animals. And beyond that, we are more than our instincts and our lizard brain, or we ought to be. We are capable, or supposed to be, of thinking instead of acting mindlessly. Perhaps I should say that some of us are capable of thinking about what they do, and having their actions guided by their ethics and moral code. And yes, some of us have a moral code.

NihilusZero -> RE: Opinons? (9/29/2008 9:45:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordSeussMD It has been genetically, sociologically and anthropologically supported that Humans as a species are meant to be a herd(poly) creature and that monogamy is neither natural nor socially sound as the species goes. "Meant" is a red herring espoused by those not adequately melding human sentience (and its continual byproducts) and geocultural mores/norms/behaviors into a changing psychological sense of self.

Jeptha -> RE: Opinons? (9/29/2008 10:58:07 AM)
I think it's a fair question (or, a fair topic for discussion, if you will.) The question that I re-formulate from the discussion, in my brain, is; "Would you be poly if you could?" And then I go further and ask myself "Under what circumstances?", because "poly" is a pretty wide-opened term. {First, just a quick aside; Poly doesn't necessarily mean that you are not in committed relationships. I've seen it alluded to that poly equates with "casual" in this thread, so I just wanted to mention that. I've been in a poly relationship for over a year (I am seeing a woman who is married, with her husband's knowledge and consent), and it is not a "casual" thing, nor is it only about sex.} Some people seem comfortable with monogamy, some seem comfortable with polygamy, and some seem to fall somewhere in the middle. Perhaps some of those people that fall inbetween are what's sometimes called "serial monogamists". I think they sometimes end up being "serial monogamists" because our society doesn't provide any other models as examples or choices for them to follow, and neither are they given any tools or encouragement with which to experiment and try to create whatever kind of relationship model suits them best. I think that grey area is one that is least explored or thought about. Currently it seems to be Either/Or. ~Or is that simply wanting to "have your cake and eat it , too?"

myotherself -> RE: Opinons? (9/29/2008 1:18:56 PM)
*FR* an interesting set of responses that set me thinking....firstly, what do we define as a sexual relationship? Would it have to involve 'standard sexual penetration', or could it simply involve a set of activities in which the participant(s) reach a sexual climax of some sort, with or without penetration? In WIITWD, there's a lot of the latter going on... Many of us subs and doms play, without necessarily getting nekkid (well, for the doms anyway!), and I dunno about anyone else but I found having the crap thrashed out of me is extremely sexually exciting. Now, most times I play (unless I'm with someone I'm in a relationship with as girlfriend/partner/sub/whatever) there's no sexual contact. Yeah, there may be those evil little pegs and clamps attached to the nether regions, but not what I would term sexual play - it's all about the power exchange, the pain and those kind of sensations. Soooo...if play counts as sexual contact, then female subs who play are technically polygamous...therefore we are really dominant males! Or something like that....my head hurts....[:'(]

SteelofUtah -> RE: Opinons? (9/29/2008 2:40:32 PM)
Hrumph.... if only I had the time to expand on this thread they way that I wanted. Surely there would be far too many words than the readers eyes would care to read so for that perhaps I should be greatful that in brevity I may have a better chance of being read. gisa, I have to say that your post brought up at first many annoyances over what kind of person would believe such a thing to be fact and beyond that to express it as an absolute. First Dominant, cannot be defined in exacts, to determine that one is or isn't Dominant based solely on thier sexual openness is the same as saying you are not a submissive is you don't use Tide to do your Laundry. They two Items are so far removed from one another that I question the logic in it entirity. Mind you that this is coming from a Poly Male who happens also to believe in Polyfidelity. Meaning that I will love more than one but only if they partner is dedicated to only the circle that I am in. This Hedonistic view is not that of what makes a Dominant but of what makes "Steel", that being that I am Dominant but I am also Poly and I believe in Polyfidelity. The logic that your friend uses is one that says that because the cities thay he knows all have a Lincoln Blvd then ALL cities must have a Lincoln Blvd. This is a HARD belief system. It means that before he even bothers to get to know a person thier sexuality has determined weather they are a Dom or not. I believe that anyone who sets out to define what Is and Isn't Dominant or submissive or True or Right for that matter is someone looking to prove that they belong to someone else. I know what I am, I feel no need to prove it to somoene else. If that means that your friend does not define me as a Dominant then I assure you I will lose little sleep over this belief. I think a larger question is how does what your friend said effect how you see the Dominant Male and does thier ability to be monogamous or polyamorous affect your ability to submit? Steel

LaTigresse -> RE: Opinons? (9/29/2008 3:41:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gisa This evening, I received a response to my profile from LordSuessMD, and with his permission to quote him, "unfortunately the psychology of a Dominant Male is the opposite of the psychology of a Monogamous male, so any who claims to be hasn't discovered Himself, or isn't Dominant really. The two psychologies are opposite....Seuss but I wish you well on your search" Opinions? My opinion? It's pretty much a load of smelly shit.

ApathyRomance -> RE: Opinons? (9/30/2008 11:22:27 PM)
That is a fuzzy beard Dr. Seuss!

GreedyTop -> RE: Opinons? (9/30/2008 11:41:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse quote: ORIGINAL: gisa This evening, I received a response to my profile from LordSuessMD, and with his permission to quote him, "unfortunately the psychology of a Dominant Male is the opposite of the psychology of a Monogamous male, so any who claims to be hasn't discovered Himself, or isn't Dominant really. The two psychologies are opposite....Seuss but I wish you well on your search" Opinions? My opinion? It's pretty much a load of smelly shit. yep

SailingBum -> RE: Opinons? (10/1/2008 1:23:55 AM)
monogamy One entry found from Websters 1archaic : the practice of marrying only once during a lifetime 2: the state or custom of being married to one person at a time 3: the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time If you take the word literally, I would venture to say that 99% of the ppl reading this are not monogamous. Thought I would toss that into the discussion for those of you preaching ethics, morals blah blah. Suess post didn't make any sense to me. BadOne

persephonee -> RE: Opinons? (10/1/2008 4:47:59 AM)
i call shenanigans....and you need to check into whether or not he has moved out of his Mommy's basement yet.

BlackPhx -> RE: Opinons? (10/1/2008 8:15:14 AM)
(The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the belief or actions of the person expressing it..WARNING SATIRE AHEAD) Monogamy is an artificial construct by men to try and ensure paternity and continuance of their genes. Inevitably anyone in attendance at a birth knows who the mother is. The father could be anyone..Monogamy was supposed to make it possible to identify the father. It is as one can see from flipping past Jerry Springer and Maury on your way to another channel a useless attempt. Any female Dominant or submissive planning on having genetic offspring should gather or attract as large a herd of men as they feel they can handle to ensure that their progeny has: a) the best possible genes available b) adequate support emotionally, intellectually, and physically as the more Hunter/Gatherers you have the better the shelter and food provided. Such a large herd of males will also ensure she has at least one orgasm, as by the time she gets through the last one for the night, her motor is primed and ready for it. No Male can be truly Dominant without being Poly, therefore, he should be more than willing to share his sub female with multiple men to ensure she has the proper care and support she will need with or without genetic offspring. Dr. Seuss has made his point quite well and I am sure that his household consists of many males in support of his one female submissive. After all, it is mans nature to share. poenkitten ( reminded of another Dominant who is now busy telling the Angels and Devils that they are not Dominants unless he says they are, they are only little boys playing at it.)

WhiplashSmile2 -> RE: Opinons? (10/1/2008 1:41:41 PM)
Personally speaking as a Dominant Monogamous male, people that believe this sort of one wayism line of crap need to be bitch slapped back into reality from what whatever galaxy there are in. This type of stuff inspires me to think sadistic thoughts.

VivaciousSub -> RE: Opinons? (10/1/2008 1:48:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhiplashSmile2 Personally speaking as a Dominant Monogamous male, people that believe this sort of one wayism line of crap need to be bitch slapped back into reality from what whatever galaxy there are in. This type of stuff inspires me to think sadistic thoughts. I really dislike "One Twue Way-ism". We all come from different backgrounds, perspectives and experiences and there's no one way to live your life. We'd be so incredibly boring if all we did was post something and have the rest of us go, "Yeah. What he said. nod vigorously" I love the constant interplay of ideas, thoughts and exchanges we have on this board, even if it occasionally degenerates into flinging sand. Even if I don't agree with someone it doesn't mean that I can't appreciate it, or assimilate part of it into what I do, or use it to critique myself. And I enjoy sadistic thoughts! I especially enjoy being on the receiving end of said thoughts.

Huntertn -> RE: Opinons? (10/1/2008 8:08:39 PM)
[image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m19.gif[/image]..dam thats funny..anyway one persons ideals ..are just that..one persons..

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875