RE: Slaves with requirements...

RE: Slaves with requirements... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Catgirl711 -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/22/2009 12:37:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Catgirl, the reason the op is getting bashed is because he announced that his, or rather answer.com's definition of a slave is the only real one. He is the one who said that only his kink is good, that any of us who think differently than him are not ok. Actually he did no such thing. You have just put words into his mouth. If he had, he wouldn't have asked for our opinions. He said this is what he believes. Quoted a definition. Then asked a question. I personally don't see how anyone got "I'm better, and my way is the only way" out of that post. (re-quoted below) He has reappeared once, but instead of conversation he felt he needed to defend himself (and I don't blame him) and unfortunately, got a little hostile himself (again... shrug I might have too). In my effort to learn about other people's kinks, I have messaged this man personally and asked him to explain his opinion in a little more detail. Turns out... there were a LOT of assumptions re: his opinion, and that an unowned slave is not a slave and therefore DOES have choice (I knew quite a few were asking this question). But... once in, they lose rights and choices and everything else. Now... does that work for you? Then you may be perfect for him. No? Well... then you won't be his slave and everybody's happy. I never once heard him say his way was the only way and the rest of you are wrong. Or say anything along those lines. quote: ORIGINAL: masterforRT More and more, I see people who call themselves slaves claiming that they only want women...or men...or couples. I have always believed that slaves are property, just like a house or a car. I don't see my car refusing to start for only one sex-so how can a slave make any decision as to who owns them? The definition of slave from Answers.com is as follows: "One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household." Property....right? I'm interested in what the rest of you think. And just for the record... turns out he and I DO have the same opinion. I am a slave to my Master. A slave without limits. I am owned. I am his property. I make no decisions, I have no rights. I have needs of which my Master knows and understands and provides. Of course... being human, one can't help but have limits. So I just made sure to choose a Master who was in line with those limits. I.E. I have a limit about being "shared", therefore I chose a Master who doesn't like sharing his toys. It works for us. May not work for you. And for the girl out there who wants to be used to every inch of her capacity, it may work for her and MasterfortRT.

LaTigresse -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/22/2009 12:40:11 PM)
Lord knows I've got some pretty strong points of view on what exactly quantifies a worthy dominant/master/mistress. These are my standards.......for ME. And while I hold myself to these standards, as it applies to my life, I also silently measure other dominants against them. Ninety nine percent of them come up lacking. I do not however, create a thread crowing about my personal standards and how lacking I find others, how those other dominants are not "real" or "true" dominants/masters/mistresses. They are just not what I strive to be. That does not make them unreal, or untrue. It simply makes them different. That also does not make the submissives or slaves that submit or serve them, stupid or any other derogatory thing I could think of to say. It only means they have a different measure of worthy. If I did lose my mind and create such a rediculous thread, I am quite certain I would get beat to a virtual bloody pulp for it. I am also quite certain it would be well deserved. Having personal standards and knowing what works for you and your life is one thing. Telling everyone else they are wrong, not real or true (insert whatever here) just because they don't agree with me is an entirely different kettle of smelly fish. And while those words may not have been used, I do believe it was implied. I may be wrong but given what I've read in the past, I doubt it. Edited to add........The OP asked what others thought. He cannot control what they think or how they express what they think. Unless he owns and/or moderates the sight......which I seriously doubt.

feydeplume -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/22/2009 12:46:15 PM)
Ouch. So you are leaping in a defending his kink because it matches yours, not because you actually believe in his right to his own kink. And you are using his post to defend and attack others about your definition of slave/slavery. On top of that you are using information withheld from public debate to attack and defend an unvoiced opinion.

Catgirl711 -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/22/2009 1:16:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: feydeplume Ouch. So you are leaping in a defending his kink because it matches yours, not because you actually believe in his right to his own kink. And you are using his post to defend and attack others about your definition of slave/slavery. On top of that you are using information withheld from public debate to attack and defend an unvoiced opinion. No. I am defending his right to have his kink just as I would defend Lashra's (who I just so happen to remember due to that incredible beauty twinkly eyes) right to have her's, even though it's nowhere near in line with my beliefs. I am not defending my definition of slavery. Personally I think TheTammyJo said it best in that it doesn't matter what others call themselves. If you want to be a "slave" with limits and an occasional Dom streak.... well, it doesn't fit my definition, but you would certainly have a right to call yourself whatever you like. I'm not going to try nd stop you. It's between the two (or more) people in the relationship what they wish their "titles" to be. As for using information withheld... well, that's true. I could post his message here if that's what you need, but it's information that MIGHT have made it to public debate if things hadn't gone the way they did, and I'm using it now to help inform. I haven't attacked anyone, have I? It's certainly not what I was attempting to do. The most unfortunate thing about threads/posts/forums/email/chat is that there is no tone and therefore many things can simply be taken in a way that it was not meant.

feydeplume -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/22/2009 1:23:51 PM)
How about you and me shake hands and move on. I am sure we have waaay more in common than this one thread. I am not whipping (wink) my definition of slave out any more than i have so far (not sure which posts are still here and which got removed for me being off-topic). I also don't feel that one definition necessarily defines all that a person is or could be. holds out hand

SingleRarity -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/22/2009 1:31:31 PM)
Just so you know, every few months the OP starts a thread, or comments on a thread, declaring that none of us/you/them are "twue" slaves. He spouts off and then disappears. I think most who left comments were not only reacting to this particular thread, but his long and documented history of aggressive "one true wayism". It just gets tiring. Daddy's Ballerina, e

Lockit -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/22/2009 1:34:38 PM)
Anything can seem understandable and defendable until one gets a clear picture of posting style, attitude and insults along with complaints as to all the fakes around here. When you go to bat for someone... and their right to their own kinky style... you might want to see some of their post if so many are bashing them. Not that everyone bashing someone makes them right... but it might indicate there is more to the story than someone new to the boards can know. Most here will defend the rights of everyone else in what they are about, like and do... but when someone repeatedly does certain things... well... they get judged on what they say and do and it is not really about their kink... but who they present.

Catgirl711 -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/22/2009 1:37:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: feydeplume How about you and me shake hands and move on. I am sure we have waaay more in common than this one thread. I am not whipping (wink) my definition of slave out any more than i have so far (not sure which posts are still here and which got removed for me being off-topic). I also don't feel that one definition necessarily defines all that a person is or could be. holds out hand I AGREE WITH YOU 100%!! Both about having more in common (I've read your other posts) and that one definition just cannot encompass everyone. shakes hand [:D] LET'S ALL BE FRIENDS giggle, snort

ALAstella -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/22/2009 1:38:21 PM)
Note to newbies: See what happens when you start making any sort of comparison involving slaves? stella

feydeplume -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/22/2009 1:53:56 PM)
If the Masters agree, do you want to bring the chips or the dip? (falls over giggling) i so crack me up! I am flattered that you have read other posts of mine. thank you for taking that time!

Catgirl711 -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/22/2009 1:54:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit Anything can seem understandable and defendable until one gets a clear picture of posting style, attitude and insults along with complaints as to all the fakes around here. When you go to bat for someone... and their right to their own kinky style... you might want to see some of their post if so many are bashing them. Not that everyone bashing someone makes them right... but it might indicate there is more to the story than someone new to the boards can know. Most here will defend the rights of everyone else in what they are about, like and do... but when someone repeatedly does certain things... well... they get judged on what they say and do and it is not really about their kink... but who they present. That I can totally understand and even agree with. The problem is, most newbies aren't going to get into looking at post histories. So, as a new people, who probably just don't have the time to go researching, we can only comment on what's before us. My fear is that, seeing a differing opinion treated with such harshness only exacerbates a newbies fear of "joining in". shrugs dunno... as SingleRarity said... he apparently does do this a lot. If so, perhaps better to ignore him then for us to play into his threads. I only brought this up because this is not the first time I've seen this happen, and as one who enjoys learning and debating (debating, not arguing), seeing things like this make me quite weary about participating. (which is why most of my posts are one-liners and I haven't really gotten into any "debate" topics) So as not to get off topic too much: Slaves are property with no rights! (personal opinion) HA HA...on topic! lol

housesub4you -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/22/2009 1:55:30 PM)
Dammit common sense wins again

Catgirl711 -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/22/2009 1:58:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: feydeplume If the Masters agree, do you want to bring the chips or the dip? (falls over giggling) i so crack me up! I am flattered that you have read other posts of mine. thank you for taking that time! Clips? Oh yes.. I'll definitely bring those! LOL Oh wait... you said chips... well that's not nearly as fun [:D] (I keed, I keed) So as not to get off topic too much: Slaves are property with no rights! (personal opinion) HA HA...on topic again! [:'(] lol

Lockit -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/22/2009 2:08:49 PM)
Wouldn't common sense suggest that message boards are filled with all sorts of people, inflamitory and not... those who wish to join in or not... those who will challenge and then those who challenge back? If one is afriad of message boards and joining in because of the nature of message boards and humans in general... then how can that be something put off on those who are not afriad of them? I would love a polly anna life... everyone sweet and kind... kinky naughty, but kind... but that isn't the way it goes nor what I get. It is what it is... and that is realistic to me... and makes perfect sense.

SingleRarity -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/22/2009 2:08:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Catgirl711 That I can totally understand and even agree with. The problem is, most newbies aren't going to get into looking at post histories. So, as a new people, who probably just don't have the time to go researching, we can only comment on what's before us. My fear is that, seeing a differing opinion treated with such harshness only exacerbates a newbies fear of "joining in". You make a valid point Catgirl, but I also think, as adults, that a newbie should have the sense to realize that Collarme is a community. Relationships are developed between the posters, and a users post history is important. CM isn't just an F.A.Q. board you know? The OP has been so aggressive in past posts, that if I met him in real life I wouldn't want to be in the same room with him. When he continues to post incindeary threads longtime posters can't and probably shouldn't forget his previous threads. Daddy's Ballerina, e BTW- I'm sending you mail on the other side.

TwilightShadows -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/22/2009 2:12:31 PM)
While the life you offer in your profile sounds lovely, I think not. Geeze.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/22/2009 2:33:22 PM)
More accurately, a slave is often someone who does not invoke their rights, and instead has surrendered all decision making rights to their owner/Master/Mistress/Dom/Domme. This is also my personal opinion, but then again I take what each person writes as their personal opinion. Even when someone cites a source, such as answers.com, they are only backing up their opinion. I believe the OP is just having problems aquiring a slave, so projects those failures outwardly instead of reflecting inwardly. I did this myself for a few years of my life. Once I admitted the failure, learned from unrealistic expectations occuring without doing what I needed to do to create internal enslavement in another, I found and was able to keep property. In the broad spectrum in the BDSM realm, slave means many things. It does not matter what it means to others, only what it means to the prospective owner and property. Matchmaking is matchmaking, no matter anything else. quote: ORIGINAL: Catgirl711 So as not to get off topic too much: Slaves are property with no rights! (personal opinion) HA HA...on topic! lol

AquaticSub -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/22/2009 3:04:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Catgirl711 In my effort to learn about other people's kinks, I have messaged this man personally and asked him to explain his opinion in a little more detail. Turns out... there were a LOT of assumptions re: his opinion, and that an unowned slave is not a slave and therefore DOES have choice (I knew quite a few were asking this question). For the record... I never said it was his opinion. I said his logic is flawed and if he wishes to use historical definations than an unowned slave is not a slave but a free person. An unclaimed or unbought slave was owned by the person intending to sell them - hence if you damaged them, you had to pay the "store owner". If you two have the same defination, that's great. The problem with his OP is that he doesn't understand why those who don't agree with him have the right to say "No I won't be your slave" since he doesn't feel slaves should have requirements about who owns them.

bound4more -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/22/2009 3:14:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: masterforRT More and more, I see people who call themselves slaves claiming that they only want women...or men...or couples. I have always believed that slaves are property, just like a house or a car. I don't see my car refusing to start for only one sex-so how can a slave make any decision as to who owns them? The definition of slave from Answers.com is as follows: "One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household." Property....right? I'm interested in what the rest of you think. [sm=beatdeadhorse.gif][sm=Groaner.gif] Well - uh - hmmmmm - let me see. Sometimes they are property - depends on how the Owner views them. In any event - aren't Master's supposed to know everything? Huh, huh???

Aszhrae -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/22/2009 3:16:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: masterforRT More and more, I see people who call themselves slaves claiming that they only want women...or men...or couples. I have always believed that slaves are property, just like a house or a car. I don't see my car refusing to start for only one sex-so how can a slave make any decision as to who owns them? The definition of slave from Answers.com is as follows: "One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household." Property....right? I'm interested in what the rest of you think. Its about being happy serving someone with all of your being. The lifestyle is about choices, its not forced, its about submitting the will of the self (at least for me) to live according to the will of another. Its also about being comfortable with the D or M that is being serviced. I would not be comfortable serving or being owned by any Master. I have too much pent up aggression towards the male ego to make it a feasible development. Which also explains why I express more affection towards the service or wanting to be owned by a mistress. Really do believe that my own beliefs and philosophy would clash with a Master's. I would also like to add, with so much aggression, found that a great focus for me to vent is being primarily service-oriented but also masochistic to the point of being a pain slut.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625