RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes

RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (Full Version)

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

Message

Lockit -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/18/2009 7:24:06 AM)
That is just it beeble... each couple... has whatever they find exciting, the way they want it. I personally feel there are human rights... and I treat people equally... but I do treat them differently and within a relationship... if we like being unequal in some things... woohoo. To each their own though... As long as people are happy doing what they like and are commenting on how they do it... who is anyone to challenge it and say that it isn't fair somehow? It isn't fair to them... but clearly there are other's who do think it is fair... fair enough to be actually doing it!

undergroundsea -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/18/2009 8:02:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: beeble To be fair, if LunaVenus has several slaves then it would be harder for her to make time for several relationships than it would be for her slaves to make time for one relationship each. Sure, a person who has multiple relationships has more demands on time and your point applies. And I do not have information about LunaVenus' specific circumstances so I will speak more in general terms. I know plenty of poly people who are able to have multiple relationships while carrying on their life. I agree that a relationship requires a contribution of energy so that the other finds it rewarding to invest time in a relationship. However, I am not convinced of the argument that in order to have a relationship with another, one must take over everyday responsibilities to create that time for the other. I think to have a relationship for which one does not otherwise have time is a choice and, in the context of being provided for materially in exchange for this relationship, I think this choice stems from the convenience of receiving material items. If the nature of the relationship is based on a mutually beneficial exchange (where it is explicitly known that one person is going to get attention and in return must provide materially), fair enough. In the context of an interpersonal relationship based on that that sustains everyday social relationships, I do not see this argument to hold. I do not say that two people who want to have a relationship based on such an exchange should not do so. My statement is directed more at scenarios where the reason given is different from the actual reason. Cheers, Sea

beeble -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/18/2009 8:29:27 AM)
quote: undergroundsea wrote: However, I am not convinced of the argument that in order to have a relationship with another, one must take over everyday responsibilities to create that time for the other. Indeed. That's why I was careful to say that having multiple relationships on the go at once makes it harder to make time for them, not impossible, and to say that I agreed with everything else you said. beeble.

undergroundsea -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/18/2009 8:53:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jasmyn You might want to rethink that as you've made an assumption Luna's need for her slaves to support her is singularly about play and not encompassing of a consenting relationship dynamic... which is how I read it. Sometimes play is used to describe miscellaneous D/s interaction, which is how I meant it. By play I do not mean one simply getting up on a cross but whatever different interactions the two might have in their respective D/s roles. That point is simply for clarification and does not affect your point. quote: I can't see how her having slaves take care of her in the manner of a wife as being about relieving her of her responsibilities..she is still responsible for the relationship and the dynamic that allows them unhindered to have the relationship/s they have. She herself made reference to not being able to have responsibilities and, as I acknowledge in my response to her, I make an assumption about what type of responsibilities were referenced. I make this assumption based on past discussions or similar arguments presented, and on my interpretation that she is speaking about why tribute is necessary. I clarify the latter point further below. As for the point that she might still have responsibilities towards the relationship dynamic, does the sub not have similar responsibilities? Here is the series of statements that provides the context for my interpretation. quote: ORIGINAL: LunaVenus In the end Lifestyle Dommes and Pro Dommes all get cared for financially and/or otherwise by their slaves. The difference is just semantics. One may initially sound better than the other but in the end its the same ball of wax. quote: ORIGINAL: LunaVenus Not necessarily all of that. But I don't know any slave that does not do something for their Domme...especially if they really love her. quote: ORIGINAL: LunaVenus If I had too many responsibilities, I would NEVER see any slaves. I would simply not have the time. It's just that simple. So their supporting me like their wife is a small yet necessary ingredient in our relationship or I would not be able to be there for them at all. My slaves are demanding. They want all of me, and I give it to them. These statements alongside the subject of the thread suggest to me that the intent is to justify tribute. Therefore, I take the last statement to also be made primarily to justify tribute. I support a fee for provision of professional domination when the relationship is clearly presented in that manner. I am less convinced of the case made for tribute in what is otherwise presented as a personal relationship. I think tribute is fine in personal relationships where the tribute is an expression of D/s roles and it is mutually sought. I do not support scenarios where it is forced upon the sub because of ratios and desperation and the like. I am not convinced of any arguments for tribute that speak of some form of hardship or difficulty and say tribute is simply a necessity. In my opinion, such arguments avoid addressing the real motivation, which is the convenience of receiving material items. While she makes reference to more than one slave, one might also see this justification provided when there is a relationship with only one person. I see that there is more room to make such an argument if one has multiple partners. Still, I feel the justification serves the same purpose. Folks who are poly have multiple relationships. Dominant men have multiple subs. They, however, do so without being provided for as a wife by their partners. If my opinion--that to say one must be provided for materially otherwise one would simply not have time does not present the actual story--is off base, how do these poly people and dominant men with multiple subs function? While the subject of the thread focuses on monetary tribute, past discussions and some of her comments might suggest labor under similar justification. I hold the same perspective with respect to labor: (1) I support provision of labor where it is presented willfully versus compelled due to the ratios, and (2) to say that receiving labor is a necessity usually does not address the primary motivation, which is the convenience of receiving labor. . Cheers, Sea

undergroundsea -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/18/2009 9:08:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit It seems your post is directed at my post. quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit Okay... how about the dominant that support's their spouse? I have had two that I supported for the most part. They could do what they wanted... it was a choice at that time. Then there were those that I made more money than. We saw nothing wrong with our relationship as it was. There are some with family and someone might stay home and care for that family as an agreed upon situation. Not everyone is single and has no one but themselves to think about. We all have different relationships and dynamic's and to say one is wrong over another who is living satisfactory with someone... or has... is simply wrong. If two people seek to have a relationship where one supports the other, great. I also do not diss a relationship that is mutually sought or where the responsibilities might be shared where one person works, and the other takes care of matters at home. If LunaVenus has relationships where subs wish to provide for her materially, great. I do not direct my comments at the dynamic but at what I consider to be an incorrect justification for the tribute. What I appreciate about professional domination is that there is an honesty of intent and a clarity about expectations. I direct my comments at justifications for tribute outside professional domination that seem to not address the real reason. quote: Your opinions are that. And my opinions are just as valid as your opinions. They usually come from reflection and thought, and they usually outline the thought process, or I respond with the thought process when asked. If you have an issue with an opinion I give, you are welcome to say so like you have done here. We will have a more productive conversation if you describe what portion of the thought process you find amiss. quote: If you don't like a dominant that expects certain things... so be it... find another. If you think certain dynamic's wrong... then don't do them. But to diss someone else's dynamics in their relationship isn't any of your business if they are not here complaining. If they come in saying this is what works for them... who is anyone here to challenge that? No one is being abused... no one is unable to walk away. I clarified that I am not commenting on a dynamic but a specific behavior. I don't participate in relationships that require tribute. I am grateful for the happy experiences I have had and the wonderful women, lifestyle and professional dommes, I have met over 11 years, and that I have been able to have these experiences without giving tribute. If two people choose to participate in a relationship based on tribute, fine. Here I object to what I consider to be incorrect justification. While on the topic of tribute, if it is forced because of desperation or ratios (which does occur), my set of values have an issue with it. It is fair of me to state how I feel about it, especially if the matter affects a group with which I identify. Just as you can make your comments against that with which you take issue in your post to the married man even if you do not participate in it, I can make my comments against that with which I take issue even if I do not participate in it. Cheers, Sea

Lockit -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/18/2009 9:44:40 AM)
Yes Sea. So according to your way of thinking... when I supported my partner's because it was very nice and comfy and what we wanted, we were wrong because other's can do it and be self supporting and busy at the same time? You imply that I or other's who are in relationships of whatever sort... are trading services for monitary value in such a case. You make something we found beautiful and very at ease with into a money thing and I am sure that they would be as disgusted with your interpretation of our relationship as I am. Then there was a man who supported me for a time as I raised um's. Do you know what all I did and not just for him? Do you know that I ran numerous ministries, home schooled, ran a monthly report and paper for a church, counseled people and on and on. Yet this is what we decided to do in life and it was a team effort. Was I trading my services for money... almost sounding like a prostitute??? This person you are quoting repeatedly and using as an example isn't here... and is now in a position to defend her relationships or ignore you. You put me in a similar position the last three or four threads we went back and forth on. I am not into an on going anything with you Sea... but you seem to be upset with how some things are... the ratio of domina's and submissive's and how some take advantage of that. You seemed to know me and how I was and challenged me and even when I explained to you what I was about, I found you repeating and my repeating again on another thread... after a first one over a month ago. Are we not all adults? Can't adults decide for themselves what they want to do? You have a distaste for something or a view on something, state it.. but do you have to use another person or their postings to prove your point? Can we not see reason without finger pointing?

Lockit -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/18/2009 9:47:55 AM)
Sea in your last post.. not to me or in response to me... about this other person... you basically call her a liar. You didn't come out and say lied... but you said... wasn't the actual story and was off base... becasue she was saying she was busy basically. How the hell do you know what she does or does not do for her partners? How can you point her out like that?

undergroundsea -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/18/2009 9:51:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: beeble That doesn't mean that I'm any less of a person but the relationship is, by its nature, one of unequal rights. Thanks for the other comments and discussion. Indeed, there are elements of inequality in D/s dynamics that are defined by the two involved. I think there should be equality with respect to consent--the inequality is described not by any one set of rules or duty but by what is mutually decided. And I see the two to have equal worth, which is what I see in your statement above. Cheers, Sea

Lockit -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/18/2009 9:52:56 AM)
You know Sea... that thread on married men... was a totally different type of thing.. and included lying and harm that could be done to um's. I have my opinion and did not offend the man I was directing my post to. I called it how I saw it and he basically was fine with it all. Your point is?

undergroundsea -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/18/2009 11:04:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit when I supported my partner's because it was very nice and comfy and what we wanted, we were wrong because other's can do it and be self supporting and busy at the same time? <snip> Then there was a man who supported me for a time as I raised um's. Do you know what all I did and not just for him? I do not find issue with any of the scenarios above. Please explain how you find such an interpretation in my comments. quote: You put me in a similar position the last three or four threads we went back and forth on. Indeed we recently had an exchange with about a similar point in this thread: http://www.collarchat.com/m_2387925/mpage_5/tm.htm While I had more to say, I withdrew from that conversation to avoid negativity for each of us. While I continue to welcome you to comment on my posts, I am frustrated because you are suggesting that I am pursuing some issue with you whereas I withdrew from our last conversation for sake of making peace, and it is you who has come at me in this thread. Are you aware that the energy you feel when you type your post comes through in it? My comments on this thread come from thoughts I generally hold. They are consistent with what I have said in the thread about service, and my comments on the matter in times past. I am sorry if you feel they are directed at you--they are not. quote: but you seem to be upset with how some things are... the ratio of domina's and submissive's and how some take advantage of that I have fared reasonably well against the ratio and it itself does not upset me. However, the thought of one person unfairly taking advantage of another does rub me wrong in general. When I see such a scenario to occur in the context of BDSM, I take issue with it. When this action is directed against a group with which I identify, I take greater notice, which is just human nature. Do you not see issue with one person taking advantage of another? What exactly is your point in this observation? quote: You seemed to know me and how I was and challenged me and even when I explained to you what I was about, I found you repeating and my repeating again on another thread... after a first one over a month ago. If you feel that I am chasing you from thread to thread, please be assured that I am not. I do not recall the thread over a month ago which you reference. There are themes that recur on these forums and I am likely to comment on a matter with the same position that I had in the past. I did not direct my post at you in this thread. I directed it at a post which overlapped with an idea you and I discussed in a prior thread, yes. I cannot simply keep myself from commenting on a matter because I know you and I have disagreed with it in the past. Our disagreement in this thread, and each of the other two recent threads you reference center on service. Why not discuss the logic of your position and point out that with which you do not agree in my logic? I have modified my thoughts about a matter based on a different thought presented by someone else. Why not help me understand why exactly you disagree with my concept, and let me see why you believe in your concept? quote: but do you have to use another person or their postings to prove your point? Can we not see reason without finger pointing? I see your point here and am pondering it. I explained in a prior discussion that I quote the comment to which I am responding to convey context. I can see how doing so might put another person on the spot. Part of me is thinking that if we participate on the forums, we should be prepared to clarify our comments or have other people comment on them. Part of me is thinking that if this conversation can be had without putting someone on the spot, all the better. I will continue to reflect on this point. Cheers, Sea

undergroundsea -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/18/2009 11:50:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit You know Sea... that thread on married men... was a totally different type of thing.. and included lying and harm that could be done to um's. I have my opinion and did not offend the man I was directing my post to. I called it how I saw it and he basically was fine with it all. Your point is? I think we are speaking of different things. I am refering to post 83 in this thread addressed to azjojoba. I am not commenting on whether or not your post has basis, but that if you can comment about a matter with which you have issue even if it does not apply to you directly and you do not participate in it, why cannot I do the same? quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit Sea in your last post.. not to me or in response to me... about this other person... you basically call her a liar. You didn't come out and say lied... but you said... wasn't the actual story and was off base... becasue she was saying she was busy basically. How the hell do you know what she does or does not do for her partners? How can you point her out like that? The profile for LunaVenus does not come up and I do not know anything beyond the information that is in her post. I may indeed be atttributing to her that I have seen elsewhere. Here is my original statement to her. quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea quote: ORIGINAL: LunaVenus If I had too many responsibilities, I would NEVER see any slaves. I would simply not have the time. It's just that simple. So their supporting me like their wife is a small yet necessary ingredient in our relationship or I would not be able to be there for them at all. My slaves are demanding. They want all of me, and I give it to them. I assume by responsibilities you mean either career-related responsibilities or miscellaneous life responsibilities such as taking care of tasks at home. Almost everybody has career responsibilities and other life responsibilities yet they find time for whatever relationship, recreation, or social outlets they have. Thus, the argument that a submissive must relieve a domme of her responsibilities so that she may have time to play does not resonate with me. After all, the submissive also has responsibilities and is still making time for play. If the play is uninteresting for the domme and she is doing it as a service for a sub and requires compensation in some way, the matter is another one. And in such a case, participating in this manner is a choice. When I am uninterested to play with someone, I do not ask for compensation but instead seek someone else with whom I am happy. From what I can see the argument aims to achieve convenience (monetary or through labor) that can be had due to the supply and demand ratios or whatever other forces that may allow it. Cheers, Sea It explains that the real reason does not resonate with me and why it does not do so. There is then an opportunity for her, or anyone else to present different reasoning. Here are other references to the same idea. quote: I think to have a relationship for which one does not otherwise have time is a choice and, in the context of being provided for materially in exchange for this relationship, I think this choice stems from the convenience of receiving material items. My statement is directed more at scenarios where the reason given is different from the actual reason. In my opinion, such arguments avoid addressing the real motivation, which is the convenience of receiving material items. If my opinion--that to say one must be provided for materially otherwise one would simply not have time does not present the actual story--is off base, how do these poly people and dominant men with multiple subs function? If my position is correct, then the reasoning given could be a lie, flawed reasoning, one convincing self to justify against moral qualms, more. If my reasoning is correct, I do not know which scenario applies to her. However, with what people do, I expect in most cases it is the first or the third scenario. If I see a statement to be incorrect, can you suggest a better, more courteous way to say so? Shall I look to post 83 in this thread as an example? I prefer harmony. I am not interested to constantly bicker. I was dissatisfied with how you responded to my post in the thread for service but I politely and amicably withdrew from that discussion. You can disregard that gesture if you wish. However, I am not going to withdraw each time. If you argue against my position or my person, I might counter. If you engage me amicably and constructively, I will certainly respond amicably and constructively. I would much prefer the latter. Cheers, Sea

Lockit -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/18/2009 12:17:32 PM)
Sea, you are mixing apples and oranges. The people I have posted to with any attitude at all... were coming in on the boards... not just giving opinions or whatever, but complaining. After a great deal of them pointing at dominant's as scammer's... judging and the like... I said some things about it and no I was not sticky sweet in my post. That is different than highlighting something someone says... and assuming you understand... and then telling them how it is wrong in your eyes... and then mixing things up. I do not have the time to go through thread after thread... point by point and prove a point. You can say I am wrong... I don't really care. I do not think you are following me around... I do however think that you are confusing some things... mixing some things up.. I mentioned such and from a small statement someone makes... you are proving a point from that moment on and you can be mistaken. I do understand having causes, defending those you feel are wronged. Sea, I have lived my life doing such... but sometimes we can't think we know what we are seeing when maybe we don't and are overly sensitive to it, in our fight of righting some wrongs or bringing awareness. You and I are simply going to see things differently. I didn't come to attack you in this thread... I was not looking for something I could attack or latch onto. However... you have said things repeatedly about how trading/bartering... for material things is not how you do it and you won't do it and you have made many comments on it... You put conditions on things and that would be fine if you made your points without using some small thing or a number of small things that really don't add up to what you are seeing. Could it be the way you are seeing it... yes. Could there be more to it.. yes and I think in later posts you will say things like... if this is what they are doing, fine.. but... Sea, you seem to be jumping to some conclusion and later going back to it and saying.. well.. okay if it is this way then okay... During a time of discovery where you could find the truth, you have highlighted the person and used them to make a point. So... we will have to agree to disagree and I am done. I don't believe either of us will have much respect for one another because we cannot see the other's point without other influences in MY opinion and I won't argue long points of anything repeatedly with you because simply... I don't want to... it doesn't mean that much to me and we don't have a relationship in which I would give that amount of focus. I do agree with many things you say... it is how things are taken and presented that we have some major issues.

undergroundsea -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/18/2009 12:22:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit Your reference to an older thread makes me think that I might have offended you or otherwise misrepresented myself in the past, which may have affected how my recent posts came across to you. Perhaps I need to have good communication and clarify any misunderstandings. Aside from that, I am sorry for putting you on the spot and for how I might have offended you by using your post as context to speak against a point in the thread about service. I see that there is room to take offense at what I said and that I could have stated my point differently. I will take the rest of this discussion to email. If you prefer to keep it in the forums, I will gladly do that instead. It seems we were typing our posts at the same time and I did not see your post before posting. Thank you for responding to clarify. Cheers, Sea

FullfigRIMAAM1 -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/18/2009 2:02:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea quote: ORIGINAL: LunaVenus Not necessarily all of that. But I don't know any slave that does not do something for their Domme...especially if they really love her. This makes perfect sense to me. We all get something out of a relationship, no matter what we call it. I personally would not be in a relationship with a man who was nothing more than a body for me to use sexually. I would have to feel that he would go above and beyond in his efforts to remain in a relationship with me, in order for me to feel he cares for me singularly as his lady. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: LunaVenus If I had too many responsibilities, I would NEVER see any slaves. I would simply not have the time. It's just that simple. So their supporting me like their wife is a small yet necessary ingredient in our relationship or I would not be able to be there for them at all. These statements alongside the subject of the thread suggest to me that the intent is to justify tribute. Therefore, I take the last statement to also be made primarily to justify tribute. Is your issue the word tribute itself? Because for as long as I've been alive, I've known some men who take care of their women, and some who also defer to her. What is wrong with her slaves taking care of her as their wife, if they can? As for the ratios, I think the only reason there is such an imbalance, is because 50% of the submissive men seeking, already have one domina at home in the form of girlfriend or wife they are serving, which would make serving another problematic, especially if the other wants his love, devotion, and material possessions shared. quote: I think tribute is fine in personal relationships where the tribute is an expression of D/s roles and it is mutually sought. I do not support scenarios where it is forced upon the sub because of ratios and desperation and the like Did she insinuate that she was forcing anyone to do anything? How many dominas on these boards speak of simply wanting a connection, and have difficulty finding someone who doesn't simply want a free ride, without the inconvenience of a relationship? Everyone wants something, and it's up to each person to find his/her appropriate counterpart. There are all types of people with different value systems here. For example, I feel that playing (and in my case I mean something that ends in sex), with someone who isn't my partner/man is giving away something I value a whole lot for free, therefore, I don't. That is just my choice. Everyone here, being adults, can make the choice of what they want and what they will do. quote: Folks who are poly have multiple relationships. Dominant men have multiple subs. They, however, do so without being provided for as a wife by their partners Do you really know how all poly relationships work, and who provides for whom? In the case of Jewel, Scooter, and Twice, the only person who works and provides for the home is Scooter. Besides, it's up to each home/dominant to decide how he/she wants to be treated, and the submissives or slaves can accept the deal or leave. quote: While the subject of the thread focuses on monetary tribute, past discussions and some of her comments might suggest labor under similar justification. I hold the same perspective with respect to labor: (1) I support provision of labor where it is presented willfully versus compelled due to the ratios, and (2) to say that receiving labor is a necessity usually does not address the primary motivation, which is the convenience of receiving labor. .Cheers, Sea Oh dear Sea. You are a strong advocate for fairness and a 50/50 relationship. Isn't that what's called vanilla? Even before I knew I wanted an unfair and unbalanced relationship, I never and would never be with a man who thought that all he had to do for me is show up. This is not a ratio thing for me, since I only discovered this "lifestyle" about 6.5years ago. It's a principle thing, because I grew up with a strong father, who did everything in his power to take care of his wife. M

undergroundsea -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/18/2009 3:16:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullfigRIMAAM1 quote: ORIGINAL: LunaVenus Not necessarily all of that. But I don't know any slave that does not do something for their Domme...especially if they really love her. This makes perfect sense to me. We all get something out of a relationship, no matter what we call it. I personally would not be in a relationship with a man who was nothing more than a body for me to use sexually. I would have to feel that he would go above and beyond in his efforts to remain in a relationship with me, in order for me to feel he cares for me singularly as his lady. Sure. Each person' s desire to be or not in a relationship depends on the sum of that that brings satisfaction and that that brings dissatisfaction. Why do you think I dispute this point? quote: Is your issue the word tribute itself? Because for as long as I've been alive, I've known some men who take care of their women, and some who also defer to her. What is wrong with her slaves taking care of her as their wife, if they can? My issue is with the idea that attention must be earned monetarily. I think attention can be earned by attracting desire. And my issue is with suggestions that tributes are made necessary by men or circumstances when instead I see it as a choice. I give reasons for why I think it is a choice and am open to seeing reasons that suggest otherwise. Receiving money or gifts upon command is convenient--it is not a gesture of affection when it is on command. When I hear someone say that they get tribute only because it helps them know that the man is sincere, or because otherwise they would not have time, the reason given does not appeal to me intellectually and I see a different reason at play. I give the reasons why it does not appeal to me intellectually and have never seen an effective counterargument. And so I also have an issue when someone tries to give a genuine reason for a motivation that is not as genuine as presented. quote: As for the ratios, I think the only reason there is such an imbalance, is because 50% of the submissive men seeking, already have one domina at home in the form of girlfriend or wife they are serving, which would make serving another problematic, especially if the other wants his love, devotion, and material possessions shared. I see your comment that there are many submissive men who are seeking who are married. I am unclear on how this point creates the imbalance you reference. quote: Did she insinuate that she was forcing anyone to do anything? How many dominas on these boards speak of simply wanting a connection, and have difficulty finding someone who doesn't simply want a free ride, without the inconvenience of a relationship? I did not make this comment in my response to her, but as part of general comments about my perspective about tribute. Wanting a free ride spans humans in general. Just as there are subs who seek a free ride sexually, which makes you feel however you feel, there are dommes who want a free ride monetarily. You see the situation as one who seeks a broader relationship and react to subs who seek to exploit you (or the group with which you identify) sexually. I see the situation as one who seeks and is willing to give towards a broader relationship and react to dommes who seek to exploit me (or the group with which I identify) monetarily. If you think that there are not dommes who try to manipulate or compel subs into giving tribute, our observations and perspectives about what realities exist differ. quote: Everyone wants something, and it's up to each person to find his/her appropriate counterpart. Sure, and a sub who does not want to give to a relationship would be well matched with a domme who is seeking to give him what he seeks for monetary exchange. However, it is not uncommon for these subs to direct their approach at dommes who seek a full relationship and not just sexual jollies. Similarly, it is not uncommon for dommes who seek tribute for sake of monetary gain to direct their approach at subs who seek a personal relationship. We often see complaints from dommes about such an experience. In my opinion, a complaint from subs about the corresponding experience, as is the case in the OP here, is equally valid. My comments are not directed at those who engage in such arrangements with mutual consent, but those whose approach is underhanded. quote: Do you really know how all poly relationships work, and who provides for whom? Yes, I know plenty of poly people and have befriended and dated several. I concede that some may have their relationships set in a way that one cares for another. However, because poly people can have relationships without having to quit their job and have others provide for them, I don't think the nature of the relationship necessitates being cared for in this manner, which is the point I make to dispute that presented by LunaVenus. quote: quote: While the subject of the thread focuses on monetary tribute, past discussions and some of her comments might suggest labor under similar justification. I hold the same perspective with respect to labor: (1) I support provision of labor where it is presented willfully versus compelled due to the ratios, and (2) to say that receiving labor is a necessity usually does not address the primary motivation, which is the convenience of receiving labor. .Cheers, Sea Oh dear Sea. You are a strong advocate for fairness and a 50/50 relationship. Isn't that what's called vanilla? Even before I knew I wanted an unfair and unbalanced relationship, I never and would never be with a man who thought that all he had to do for me is show up. This is not a ratio thing for me, since I only discovered this "lifestyle" about 6.5years ago. It's a principle thing, because I grew up with a strong father, who did everything in his power to take care of his wife. M I am confused. I don't see how the text you have quoted leads to the conclusion that you state. The scenario I reference is hardly vanilla or even 50/50. Indeed I am a strong advocate for fairness when it comes to consent. I think defying consent outright is unequivocally wrong. I think manipulating consent for self-serving reasons is unfair. Do you feel differently? I also grew up with a strong father, who did everything in his power to take care of his wife and children. However, if anyone told him he had to somehow purchase through money or labor their affection, he would not go for it. I feel the same way. To the extent you suggest that those who object to tribute would not take care of someone they love, I disagree. Cheers, Sea

PeonForHer -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/18/2009 3:51:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: beeble quote: Lockit wrote: I do believe in equal rights for men, women, dominant and submissive... I'm not sure about equal rights for dominant and submissive: doesn't the act of submission voluntarily set up a situation with unequal rights? My Mistress has the right to touch my body in any way she pleases; I am usually allowed to touch her as I please but she can forbid that whenever she wants to. She has the right to cause me pain but I have no such right over her. She has the right to control my orgasms and my sexual pleasure but I have no such control over her. That doesn't mean that I'm any less of a person but the relationship is, by its nature, one of unequal rights. beeble. Hmm. I can't see that, beeble. As you yourself have often noted, BDSM exists, in some ways, in a complicated world of contradictions all of its own. Dwarfing all rights between D/s partners here is that of either partner to walk away at any time he/she so desires. In other contexts - say, those of social political rights - it's rare to hear of people "choosing the rights" that they want!

undergroundsea -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/18/2009 5:12:29 PM)
I take back everything I said to Lockit and instead direct it at PFH. He uses such a goofy font. I mean, what kind of weirdo uses that font anyway? Cheers, Sea

Lockit -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/18/2009 5:18:20 PM)
LOL...

undergroundsea -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/18/2009 5:22:01 PM)
While I am at it, I also regret whatever I might have projected upon LunaVenus in my follow on posts without her having a chance to respond. I still think PFH uses a goofy font though. Cheers, Sea

LunaVenus -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/18/2009 6:24:48 PM)
I have never heard anyone think a woman should not be pampered or taken care of as much her man/men are capable of and desire to. Likewise, I think women have the right to pamper and support their men if they so choose as well. And it is no one's concern except the parties involved. You have no personal knowledge of my relations with my beloved. Please refrain from analyzing my relationships and making fallacious, slanderous inferences. And I shall do the same.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875