RE: Under Protection????????

RE: Under Protection???????? (Full Version)

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

Message

Apocalypso -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/8/2009 1:22:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally Steven, say that we are not talking about subs and doms but human beings, would you ever say you knew what was best for another human being? Why does the oriantation mean that it is ok to say so? How would you feel if a sub had you under their protection? DarkSteven is under my protection. Do not disagree with him.

WyldHrt -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/8/2009 1:23:08 PM)
I didn't mean to imply that you think all are the same, LOV. I know better [:D] As for Doms not ever being under protection, I haven't actually heard of a Dom being collared either (switches being the exception), but that doesn't seem to get the same objection. Although the actual term isn't used, I'm fairly sure that some new Doms are, in fact, protected by experienced subs when they first venture into the scene.

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/8/2009 1:23:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally Steven, say that we are not talking about subs and doms but human beings, would you ever say you knew what was best for another human being? Why does the oriantation mean that it is ok to say so? How would you feel if a sub had you under their protection? DarkSteven is under my protection. Do not disagree with him. Christ, I didn't even realise. I am so sorry Apocalypso, and Steven, if I knew I wouldn't have done it. So sorry.

WyldHrt -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/8/2009 1:26:15 PM)
quote: Christ, I didn't even realise. I am so sorry Apocalypso, and Steven, if I knew I wouldn't have done it. So sorry. [sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif]

pridedenied -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/8/2009 1:59:03 PM)
In my experience "under protection" just means a more experienced person in the bdsm world looks after you in a fairly platonic fashion. Anything more than that is no longer under protection and more like under consideration or something else.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/8/2009 5:22:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovingpet quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: lovingpet What business is it of yours if a submissive gives any amount of control or service to someone outside of a collared relationship? None... as I stated earlier, people are free to do whatever they choose, and I'm free to think their behavior/verbiage stupid. The OP asked for opinions, and got them. "What business is it of yours" to think all need to see this from YOUR point of view?!! What two people choose as a dynamic is their business, not mine... Nor is it your "business" to try to bring others to your way of thinking. I think the "protector" dynamic stupid... that's my opinion. Object all you want, it doesn't change my opinion of the dynamic.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/8/2009 5:26:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovingpet The only "wide gap" in logic belongs to you and your pal. One either belongs to another, or they don't; and your buddy can't seem to make up his mind.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/8/2009 5:51:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Now who's the one that's not "reading"??? Here's what I wrote: I find it incredible that you can't understand the difference between "a Dom deciding what's best for THEIR sub" versus "a Dom deciding what's best for A sub". So your reply of, "NEVER in my post did I ever imply that I would decide what's best for someone else's sub" makes no sense. This thread is NOT about "Protecting" one that's owned by someone else, but about one that's unattached. And in that case, you feel you're in some great position to decide what's best for someone else. Here are your own words again: quote: DarkSteven If I don't think a relationship would be good for her, it ain't gonna happen. Once more, you only know what YOU like/dislike, and can't possibly know what a newbie (or anyone else) TRULY likes/dislikes, or what will be best for them in the long term because you are NOT them. Fantasize and inflate your ego thinking you can all you want, but nobody ever TRULY knows what's best for someone else because YOUR are not THEM. Thus, your alleged "protection" results in LIMITING... to only those that YOU supposedly approve of. Little more than an attempt at pseudo D/s for some who can't find someone of their own, so they play the "protector" or "mentor" thing as a cheap substitute.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/8/2009 6:03:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: Ummm... THEIR sub, yes... "a sub", no. But in the case of being "under protection" hasn't the sub given the right to make such decisions to the dominant in question? Do they not have the right to do so? You're mixing apples and oranges. The topic is NOT about whether one has the "right" to enter into a "protector" dynamic, but what others think of it... and I think it's stupid. We have tons of friends that are involved in the power dynamic... many of which, as you can imagine, will voice their thoughts, concerns, and even ask for opinions. But offering an OPINION of another (or their actions) is a far cry from DECIDING who someone else is to be with. The alleged "protector" dynamic often involves DECIDING who is best for another. That's stupid.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/8/2009 6:16:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Really? No one adult is ever more capable of this than another? So, why do personal trainers exist? Ummm... a "personal trainer" isn't telling you WHO you should be involved with; just how to lose your fat roll. You honestly can't see the difference, let alone that a "personal trainer" is one that FOLLOWS YOUR ORDERS, not the other way around?!! I'm not addressing anything else in your post because you're very obviously off the reservation if you think there's any parallel between an alleged BDSM "Protector" who picks your Top for you and a hired Personal Trainer!!! Funny... I would have guessed Richard Simmons more the submissive type, anyway?!! LOL [sm=Groaner.gif]

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/8/2009 6:29:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact So what you're saying here is that, no lifestyle person can assist with some of these things? No, actually... I'm not, as "assisting" is one thing, where DECIDING is another. quote: They are honestly learning how to say no. It can be very helpful for them to have someone who is in something of a reinforcer position. In my opinion they are NOT "learning", because the dynamic lends itself NOT to the alleged "Protector" acting as the "reinforcer", but as the ENFORCER.

CelticPrince -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/9/2009 3:21:56 AM)
quote: That's not entirely correct. LP Well considering the pissing match that this has developed into, I will settle for almost. CP

CelticPrince -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/9/2009 3:23:53 AM)
quote: Except that sometimes it's a cheap cigar. NZ, Well not being a smoker, I beg off the topic. CP

WyldHrt -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/9/2009 3:39:57 AM)
quote: Well sometimes, these threads just create a life of their own. Yeah, no shit. Still, I have to wonder if your ass is chapped on behalf of those poor newbs for being isolated by predator Doms.... or if it is the fact that "under protection" in a profile might just mean that some D is cock blocking you from putting your own moves on said newbs. Given your posts in this thread, I suspect the latter. Hardly a noble motive in my book, but that's just me.

lovingpet -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/9/2009 9:49:23 AM)
Nevermind. It is truly hopeless to argue with you. I have absolutely NO opinion on this matter except that it is NOT a dynamic I would desire to enter. You are claiming others are trying to make true believers out of others with differing opinions while we are all maintaining what our preference is AND the right of others to enjoy this dynamic or avoid it as they see fit for THEMSELVES. Even as simply as I put it in my posts, you still project your own attempts to one true way everyone on me and others on this thread. I am done. Finished. Over and out. I have better things to do. lovingpet

seababy -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/9/2009 9:56:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Really? No one adult is ever more capable of this than another? So, why do personal trainers exist? Ummm... a "personal trainer" isn't telling you WHO you should be involved with; just how to lose your fat roll. You honestly can't see the difference, let alone that a "personal trainer" is one that FOLLOWS YOUR ORDERS, not the other way around?!! I'm not addressing anything else in your post because you're very obviously off the reservation if you think there's any parallel between an alleged BDSM "Protector" who picks your Top for you and a hired Personal Trainer!!! Funny... I would have guessed Richard Simmons more the submissive type, anyway?!! LOL [sm=Groaner.gif] Not my friggin personal trainer!! [sm=sm.gif] (finish that last chin up worm!)

eyesopened -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/9/2009 12:52:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CelticPrince quote: I guess CP I would like you to be point specific. Why does "under protection of BadAssMaster" chap your ass when said profile in no way adds to or deletes from the quality of your life? Is is that you dearly wish all would understand the "right way" to do things? It's just that as pointed out many times, newbies are going to make mistakes. Every single human being (sans those with physical defect or disease to prevent such) had to fall down a LOT in order to learn to walk. It is what it is. Getting ones ass chapped seems so unhappy. Personally, I prefer to laugh. Like, what chaps my ass is a snow drift about this high..... eyes, I am confused. Who is BAM, I reviewed your profile for mention of him or was that an example in general? You asked for my point specific; here it be. For myself it is an indication of some horndog that knows better using the term to isolate the "newbie" so he/she has time to work on her/him. CP LOL... CP, I doubt much confuses you and you know that I was just using a TOS example rather than refer to an actual person or profile. I tend to agree with you, that "under protection" and "under consideration" has been used so often as way for horndogs to isolate newbies that any other meaning of the terms gets lost. It's not unlike the poor ski mask. Invented, designed and manufactured to keep the face warm in cold, blustering weather but get pulled over for speeding and let a cop see a ski-mask in your car and they will assume you had or will commit robbery. I believe "under consideration" and "under protection" began innocently enough and can still be used in a positive fashion as has been pointed out in this thread.

Arpig -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/9/2009 4:11:38 PM)
quote: The topic is NOT about whether one has the "right" to enter into a "protector" dynamic, but what others think of it... and I think it's stupid. So if a sub who is at present not in a relationship with a d-type decides to surrender a limited amount of power to a more experienced d-type, he/she is stupid? Did I get that right? quote: The alleged "protector" dynamic often involves DECIDING who is best for another. That's stupid. Not in my experience.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/9/2009 6:11:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seababy Not my friggin personal trainer!! [sm=sm.gif] (finish that last chin up worm!) [sm=LMAO.gif]

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Under Protection???????? (8/9/2009 6:26:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: The topic is NOT about whether one has the "right" to enter into a "protector" dynamic, but what others think of it... and I think it's stupid. So if a sub who is at present not in a relationship with a d-type decides to surrender a limited amount of power to a more experienced d-type, he/she is stupid? Did I get that right? No, you didn't... allowing someone else to pick WHO your "d-type" should be is hardly "a limited amount of power". quote: quote: The alleged "protector" dynamic often involves DECIDING who is best for another. That's stupid. Not in my experience. You're very obvioiusly not that "experienced", then. Maybe you missed the shining example of someone else deciding for another in this very thread? Here, let me help you out: quote: DarkSteven If I don't think a relationship would be good for her, it ain't gonna happen. Just because YOU don't see something, or elect to close your eyes to it [:(]... doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875