quote:

Kim commented on this, and made an interesting observation- she pointed me to DesFIP's point where she makes a similar point , that some Dominants do in fact want someone who is NOT to be loved, cherished and honored, NOT part of a couple, but merely a maid with fuck priviledges. Kinda like how some guys claim to want a girlfriend, but really only want a fuckbuddy.

Well...in that case, yeah, I can see where it would be a rather sore point. So it isn't really about not wanting to do housework, but wanting the housework to be part of a package that comes with being in a fulfilling relationship.

quote:

some Dominants do in fact want someone who is NOT to be loved, cherished and honored, NOT part of a couple, but merely a maid with fuck priviledges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sravaka

Bingo.  Some of these guys state it explicitly:  "I am not looking for a girlfriend or wife or partner.  I am looking for a slave.  That means you do the housework and serve me sexually and expect nothing else."  (or words to the effect)  I have no doubt that there are submissives out there for whom that works, but it irks me to no end when this sort of thing begins to color expectations and definitions of "slaves" across the board (as i believe it does).  Call me crazy, but i think it's possible to be a slave while *sharing* housework and being valued by your master for something other than your capacity for labor. 

I've ceased identifying as a potential slave precisely because of this crap.  The word conveys things now that I'd swear it didn't used to (at least not inevitably).  It's always cheering to read people like you, and Jeff, and others who see it in different terms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sravaka

Call me crazy, but i think it's possible to be a slave while *sharing* housework and being valued by your master for something other than your capacity for labor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sravaka

I've ceased identifying as a potential slave precisely because of this crap.  The word conveys things now that I'd swear it didn't used to (at least not inevitably).  It's always cheering to read people like you, and Jeff, and others who see it in different terms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crouchingtigress

The word slave is entirly defined by the person using the word.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite

IronBear, I don't understand why you said it's misleading to focus on romantic love as well as a M/s or D/s relationship. Plenty of people do incorporate both, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to hold out for someone who offers both. Sure, when I was looking, there were plenty of people who did only want a service relationship or service/sexual. Nothing wrong with it if that's what both people want and need, but I can't see any point in a committed relationship with someone who's not interested in me romantically, whether it's because they're gay, they're already married/poly, or I just don't spark that reaction in them. They're all equally incompatible with me, so there's no functional difference among them as far as getting involved.

quote:

These blokes are looking for a slave to fit into a M/s dynamic and often TPE 24/7. They are not looking for a girlfriend or romantic attachment (some are married to a partner who may be either Dominant or submissive (slave) and have a poly home. Sex is the nearest they will consider regarding affection or intimacy. In some cases they state also they seek service slaves which certainly in both the Victorian and Gorean lifestyles does mean housekeeping duties (this is usually modified if the slave is also employed or has disabilities). I would say that the majority of such men do not post their requirements quite so bluntly. I know for I also fit into this category. You would be right when you say that it works for some and probably more so for slaves than submissives simply because of the dynamics of a M/s relationship and expectation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite


DesFIP, I think that going from "your specific housework expectations are unreasonable/unworkable" to "I won't do *any* housework" is rather over the top. There's a middle ground in between, and I think that it's best to discuss it on an individual basis, instead of assuming that they will have the same views as a previous partner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

I guess if people are occasional play partners, not a live in couple it is very different. But failing that, I am amused at the image of a D/s couple standing over the cat box, arguing the Hegelian dialectics of service versus punishment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel

Sorry but i just LOVE statements like this:

quote:

why shouldnt a slave prove to the Master who she is by doing the things that He would require her to do if she was His. A trial of sorts.

I guess i am different, i don't play a slave prior to being a slave just so i can show how slave i can be.

angel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Falkenstein

Of course, my dear AnimusRex, you fail to take into consideration that a real master can teach a cat to use the toilets and even flush afterward.

quote:

all you need is one idiot who expects you to commute to and from work, come home, help with homework, clean your house, feed your family, prepare for the next day and then run over to his house where you stay up till 3:00AM doing his laundry, cleaning his place, cooking a meal for him to eat the next day, then return home to get no sleep and start it all over again to make you say it's easier to just have a hard limit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Falkenstein

Of course, my dear AnimusRex, you fail to take into consideration that a real master can teach a cat to use the toilets and even flush afterward.
Henry

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear
My point is that it is wrong and indeed misleading to argue the romantic attachment and the hope for a marriage of not a Bf/gf relationship as well. this is often alluded to in profiles when someone mentions that they want a long term relationship with the possibility of having ums etc. Read enough profiles and you will see this too. naturally this idea carries over when these lasses post here. As I stated, not everyone wants this but wants a simple M/s relationship. If this were not the case and this was naught but a dating site for prospective life partners, I wouldn't be here. Of course it is misleading when the person to whom I responded to was refering to romasntic ties etc. This is in itself a misrepresentation as it could allow the unwary to believe that the men who want a slave without the emotional or romantic ties are all bastards. I was simple attempting to balance the books and defend those of us who do want if not a fuck buddy as well, but certainly want and look for a service slave for domestic duties.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite

Both you and PDXDom have expressed that you don't feel that someone is a slave unless she either makes a conscious decision to do so, or because obeying is automatic, rather than him having to do anything to master her, to bring out that side of her. You're entitled to your opinions, but I'm a bit mystified. Some people *do* feel submissive toward just anyone, or I suppose can decide to behave a particular way, but do you seriously think that no submissive or slave needs anything special in order to enter that type of relationship with a specific person? If so, what makes her decide to submit to or be enslaved by him, just random chance/first-come first-served?

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

quote:

ORIGINAL: Falkenstein

Of course, my dear AnimusRex, you fail to take into consideration that a real master can teach a cat to use the toilets and even flush afterward.
Henry

As the humble servant of three sneering insolent Cats, I refuse to accept the notion that a Cat can be mastered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DagnyT

quote:

ORIGINAL: crouchingtigress

The word slave is entirly defined by the person using the word.

I think that is unfortunately true and completely ridiculous: I can't think of any other sphere where pivotal words are "allowed" to have vastly divergent and/or contradictory meanings. And often the same people that loudly tout how imperative it is to communicate insist they have the right to define words willy-nilly as they choose: obfuscation, anyone?

To me it is simple: no limits = there is nothing you would refuse to do, "no housework" = a limit; thus, this person should not define themselves as having "no limits".

I don't think having limits makes them "bad" or "lesser" or "wrong": it makes them honest about their needs, expectations, and service.

And I don't think limits are a bad thing, especially at the outset, while searching- lots of things you may think are limits disappear off your "limit list" when you are actually with someone).

Seeing someone who is currently not in a relationship who defines themselves as a "no limit slave" with a list (however small and trivial) of things they won't do makes me think they are either a fantasist, an idiot, or their definition of "no limit slave" equals my definition of topping-from-the-bottom princess (which basically, to me, would mean they are grossly misrepresenting themselves).

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

Their desire to be in a relationship with me is certainly something my character should inspire in them...but if those same traits (or lesser reasons) are needed in order to effect her actual obedience, then it strikes me as much more a situation of role-playing or a situation where the s-type does not appear to consider submission/servitude as an innate quality in them but just a status they can attain in a sufficiently comfortable environment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
I don't think that will spark a hard limit--it WILL, however, very quickly force both start living in the real world.

No reasonable person, master or slave, would enter such as you describe.