RE: Dominants Wearing Collars

RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (Full Version)

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

Message

MasterDarkSadist -> RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (4/8/2009 9:32:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper How do you feel about dominants wearing collars? I don't think it is appropriate. How do you feel about unowned people wearing collars in public venues? I don't think it is appropriate. What the collar represents is very near and dear to me. Destroying that meaning is tasteless. Especially if you lack the backbone to just say you are not interested (if you are wearing a collar to keep guys from hitting on you). Do you think we should strive for a more unified culture in public space? (Yes. I believe that the lifestyle would benefit from a generally more unified structure. It would unify the already unified factions that already exist.) Do you always assume a person in a collar is owned? Yes. Based on my beliefs, it would be contrary to them to assume otherwise. What is your opinion of people who go to BDSM clubs (frequently or not, doesn't matter) to play, but do not keep a power exchange dynamic anywhere else? To each their own, but let me do things my way as well.

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (4/8/2009 10:00:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marie2 At any rate, we don't own fashion. While I generally understand that sentiment, I see it somewhat inversed: we all own fashion, and are responsible for the way we express it, or else so many teens wouldn't use it to annoy their parents and there wouldn't be so much to-do about Sarah Parker's gaudy green dress. [:D]

Lynnxz -> RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (4/8/2009 10:14:17 AM)
I read that as "You, as a self proclaimed domydomdom do not have the right to get pissy and pouty because someone else chooses to something around their neck, get over it."

AngelGeena -> RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (4/8/2009 10:18:58 AM)
I don't think there is a universal definition of a collar that means someone is owned because they wear one. Especially if it is of the dog variety. Just because I see some kid with blue hair doens't necessarily make him a Smurf. [sm=biggrin.gif]

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (4/8/2009 10:33:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lynnxz I read that as "You, as a self proclaimed domydomdom do not have the right to get pissy and pouty because someone else chooses to something around their neck, get over it." I'm well within my right—domydomdom or not—to express a sentiment about the cues and symbolisms behind contemporary fashion. Perhaps you should get over it. [;)]

ModeratorEleven -> RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (4/8/2009 10:35:02 AM)
Perhaps you both should. XI

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (4/8/2009 10:45:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kidwithknife But everyone has their own little eccentricities and cultural baggage on this issue. Because despite what I've just said, I still wince inwardly at the sight of 'ironic' Motorhead t-shirts.... * Laughs Well said.

LaTigresse -> RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (4/8/2009 10:56:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Venalismihi All the following, just my opinion, so no need for sarcastic comments as I was asked for my opinion by the OP and not by anyone else here: "dominants wearing collars?" Why would they? " unowned people wearing collars in public venues?" For me, confusing. Gone are the days when this clearly stated who was whom and the rest of us were in no doubt. " a more unified culture in public space?" Long overdue. "Do you always assume a person in a collar is owned?" Yes, and why would I not, is that not what they are for? "What is your opinion of people who go to BDSM clubs (frequently or not, doesn't matter) to play, but do not keep a power exchange dynamic anywhere else?" Players. I am confused. A person that says they are dominant, makes a fuss about collars being for owned people, yet has photos in their profile of a person wearing something that appears to be a collar.............??? As for my personal opinion on people wearing them.....does it really matter? You will never find anything tight around my neck yet I have necklaces that some could use as a slave collar. Hey, I have a jewelry fetish. I guarantee no one that spends time with me will be confused. It's for my personal physical comfort that it not touch my neck, above my collar bones or I feel......icky and constricted. If my lead pressman started wearing a heavy studded black leather collar to work......my musings about he and his wife would be confirmed.

colouredin -> RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (4/8/2009 11:09:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian Why do so many analogies come back to football? Rest assured, I find team numbers and names stamped across shirts in general society equally amusing, if not irksome. You might feel the same way about suits and ties. Don't mind me and my opinions; I'd never foist my tastes on the rest of society even if I could, but the little corner of the world that is mine is most certainly a dictatorship. Fair enough, I just wondered what made it funny. You raise an interesting point though, your fashion choice is your own, you may never wear something that I think looks wonderful, thats cool, its a shame though that rather than just accepting people have their own definitions on style some people decide to ridicule them. But then I guess thats just each to their own to be honest.

RCdc -> RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (4/8/2009 11:15:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Venalismihi colouredin it is Venalismihi not ishi. I will return to the wedding ring. Not only does this symbol let the two know to whom they belong [but let's face it they were both at the ceremony, so why would they need the rings] it lets the rest of the world know that they are betrothed to someone else and not for the taking. A wedding ring shows a legal commitment. Otherwise it's just a ring. And it doesn't have to be a band, it could be whatever the couple choose. the.dark.

sirsholly -> RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (4/8/2009 11:32:44 AM)
quote: A wedding ring shows a legal commitment. the marriage license shows a legal commitment. A wedding ring does not have to be worn for the commitment to be there. The wearing of the ring, as the wearing of the collar, is what the bearer chooses it to be. In my case..it is a sign of devotion, love, honor, promise, etc.

marie2 -> RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (4/8/2009 11:35:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian quote: ORIGINAL: marie2 At any rate, we don't own fashion. While I generally understand that sentiment, I see it somewhat inversed: we all own fashion, and are responsible for the way we express it, or else so many teens wouldn't use it to annoy their parents and there wouldn't be so much to-do about Sarah Parker's gaudy green dress. [:D] True. And if that gaudy green dress was paired up with a color-coordinated hood pulled down over her face, it would make for an exquisite ensemble.

SilverMark -> RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (4/8/2009 11:41:36 AM)
I have been married FOREVER, and have not worn a wedding ring for the last 3 years....doesn't mean I am not married...tried that a few times....it didn't work[image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m10.gif[/image] I only took the ring off because I had to have it cut off after my finger was biten on a fishing trip and it swelled so large that I couldn't get the ring off without it being cut.The ring never changed a thing nor has not having it on my finger....The ring is only a symbol....it only means what the person wearing it and the person who gave it want it to mean,Collars are much the same.

RCdc -> RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (4/8/2009 11:43:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly quote: A wedding ring shows a legal commitment. the marriage license shows a legal commitment. A wedding ring does not have to be worn for the commitment to be there. The wearing of the ring, as the wearing of the collar, is what the bearer chooses it to be. In my case..it is a sign of devotion, love, honor, promise, etc. Yes you are right holly. I was in the middle of dinner and just replied far to quickly and came back to amend - you are just too fast![;)] My point was going to be, that the rings are there to show that people have made the legal commitment. That not everyone chooses to even acknowledge it by wearing rings, so using the analagy that because there is no collar, someone is fair game pretty much sucks. That said, if you weren't married holly, but had decided to not get the legal work done, would wearing the rings make your love and devotion any less? I believe not. Some people even continue wearing their rings after their partner has passed away... should they not because they aren't married? An extreme suggestion, but one that some people seem to be promoting because of symbolism. Same goes for people who wear collars. Some find it symbolic. Some think they are just attractive. Not everyone places a symbolic meaning on them other than love. For me, that which Venalismihi is wearing could be a collar. Without asking and confirming, who knows? Without reading the profile, I wouldn;t have guessed she was a dominant. But I would ask and not rely on a symbol to tell me. Again I find myself saying, in a place (BDSM) where people promote communication and talking, why oh why does there seem to be so bloody little? the.dark.

stella41b -> RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (4/8/2009 11:48:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper How do you feel about dominants wearing collars? It depends. In a few if the collar was made up of both hands of their submissive and was rather tight it might be a positive experience but otherwise I have no opinion. quote: ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper How do you feel about unowned people wearing collars in public venues? Nowhere near as passionate as unowned people having nowhere to sleep but the streets. quote: ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper Do you think we should strive for a more unified culture in public space? I think we should be striving for far more acceptance of people who are different, more diversity in culture in public spaces and certainly more chill pills for people prone to getting their panties in a wad for little or no reason. quote: ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper Do you always assume a person in a collar is owned? No, because I'm minding my own business. quote: ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper What is your opinion of people who go to BDSM clubs (frequently or not, doesn't matter) to play, but do not keep a power exchange dynamic anywhere else? And what does the Thought Police suggest I think of them?

sirsholly -> RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (4/8/2009 11:50:01 AM)
quote: That said, if you weren't married holly, but had decided to not get the legal work done, would wearing the rings make your love and devotion any less? I believe not. you are right. it certainly would not. The real commitment lies in the heart. If you remove the ring/collar do you remove the commitment? Heavens no [:)]

sirsholly -> RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (4/8/2009 11:55:05 AM)
quote: Some people even continue wearing their rings after their partner has passed away... should they not because they aren't married? An extreme suggestion, but one that some people seem to be promoting because of symbolism. i wasn't going to say anything about this...but when my late husband passed away i continued to wear my ring with his band over it, held on by my engagement ring. The meaning? I was married. I was his wife. That commitment did not die when he did. Devotion of that magnitude cannot be turned off with the playing of taps.

sirsholly -> RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (4/8/2009 11:57:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark I have been married FOREVER, and have not worn a wedding ring for the last 3 years....doesn't mean I am not married...tried that a few times....it didn't work[image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m10.gif[/image] I only took the ring off because I had to have it cut off after my finger was biten on a fishing trip and it swelled so large that I couldn't get the ring off without it being cut.The ring never changed a thing nor has not having it on my finger....The ring is only a symbol....it only means what the person wearing it and the person who gave it want it to mean,Collars are much the same. Mark...good post and i agree but i cannot let this pass: you were bitten by a fish?

Venalismihi -> RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (4/8/2009 12:16:25 PM)
LaTigresse, sorry that you are confused. "A person that says they are dominant, makes a fuss about collars being for owned people, yet has photos in their profile of a person wearing something that appears to be a collar..." I was not making a fuss regarding collars. I give my opinion. I was challenged on it and I gave further explanation regarding my opinion. As for the photos, boa in one not a collar. A silver choker in another, not a collar, and I am almost certain a cartoon not of me at all, in another.

interlocutor -> RE: Dominants Wearing Collars (4/8/2009 12:23:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: colouredin To be honest I dont think we should have a 'unified' culture, (sorry I have a terrible image of gold stars emblazoned onto clothes). This whole conversation reminds me of The Sneetches. "until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew whether this one was that one or that one was this one or which one was what one... or what one was who." Hmmm maybe I should start selling collars.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875