RE: I dont get it (Full Version)

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



Message

RCdc -> RE: I dont get it (10/15/2009 9:32:01 AM)

I do not see it as telling a dominant how they must be, it's just explaining what kind of relationship they can cope with.  There are many DD relationships out there who require a s-type and only want a triad.
It narrows their pool, but if they are ok with that and are being clear, then I do not see it as overstepping, seeing as they are not owned or in a relationship.  Isn't that what negotiation is all about?

the.dark.



Kana -> RE: I dont get it (10/15/2009 9:35:50 AM)

You don't have to get it. In fact nobody does except for the parties involved. As long as they get it, and it works for them, that's all that matters.



LadyPact -> RE: I dont get it (10/15/2009 9:58:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VampiresLair

Perhaps I didnt state the problem I was having with it quite right. They dont say anything about having vanilla lovers, or equals, they specifically say that being with Dominant lovers is OK, but submissives are not. I have been in D/D relationships when there was no power exchange, and I know it can happen. However, what I dont get is why the sub would want to specify that they were ok with their Dominant being with other dominants specifically... not with having other lovers who are not their submissives. After all, if they are JUST lovers, what does the orientation matter?


It might be a case of a submissive who is ok with poly, but only to a certain extent.  They might not feel they are ready to be in a situation where someone else exists who fills the same type of role.  Using Myself as an example, I've often stated that our poly situation works so well for us is that there are two different types of relationships going on.  MP and clip get different types of interactions with Me.  MP doesn't serve Me in any way and that is very clearly clip's place.  This is different than if I had two subs, who might see it as vying for the same type of time and attention.



agirl -> RE: I dont get it (10/15/2009 10:17:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VampiresLair

Perhaps I didnt state the problem I was having with it quite right. They dont say anything about having vanilla lovers, or equals, they specifically say that being with Dominant lovers is OK, but submissives are not. I have been in D/D relationships when there was no power exchange, and I know it can happen. However, what I dont get is why the sub would want to specify that they were ok with their Dominant being with other dominants specifically... not with having other lovers who are not their submissives. After all, if they are JUST lovers, what does the orientation matter?


Who knows? It would still basically say the same thing........*just me as the sub*. That really is the general gist, no?......She could have said *ok with vanilla lovers, dwarf lovers, gay lovers*....and so on and so forth*

I think you could be reading far too much into the way it's worded. I imagine it was worded that way as it's a bdsm/D/s site, with bdsm/D/s proclivities at the fore.

I repeat ...Who knows.

agirl



DemonKia -> RE: I dont get it (10/15/2009 10:23:38 AM)

& saying what one means in writing is a lot trickier than it might seem . . . . . Aren't these online fora, collectively, kinda proof positive of that proposition?

With all due respect, I suspect one would need to communicate with that individual to know exactly what they mean . . . .. .

& it might not be a short communication to get it fully hashed out . . . . .

[;)]



NihilusZero -> RE: I dont get it (10/15/2009 11:22:50 AM)

They are equating how special they feel in the relationship with being able to be the only one playing X role in it (additional D-types would probably mean more BDSM attention directed at hir).

Even most poly folks I know (myself included) have weird quirks and hierarchy nuances like these. My first reaction was to reply in echo with the "insecurity" type of reaction but, by that definition, anyone not completely sexually/romantically open to anyone and everyone equally has one type of "insecurity" or another.



sweetsub1957 -> RE: I dont get it (10/15/2009 11:34:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VampiresLair

However, what I dont get is why the sub would want to specify that they were ok with their Dominant being with other dominants specifically... not with having other lovers who are not their submissives. After all, if they are JUST lovers, what does the orientation matter?


I think justagirl was right on when she said "Insecurity. Jealousy issues, anxiety about their place in the pecking order."  They don't want to "share" with another submissive because they're afraid they won't get their "fair share" or that they may be left behind.  Since they're not in a relationship yet with the Dominant reading the profile, the sub is simply putting his/her hard limit on that right up front and I think that's a good thing.  BUT if there's already a relationship there and then the sub starts telling the Dom/me how it's going to be, I'd consider that very wrong.  And maybe vanilla lovers weren't mentioned because the sub didn't even consider that as a possibility.



CalifChick -> RE: I dont get it (10/15/2009 11:59:12 AM)

What I get from (relatively) vanilla men as lovers is far different than what I get from kinky men as lovers.  I can see how some submissive people might have a problem with their Dom getting that "power need" fulfilled with another sub.  Reminds me of some people I know who say that fucking around is okay as long as no one says "I love you" or another couple who can fuck around with others as long as there is no kissing.

Cali



leadership527 -> RE: I dont get it (10/15/2009 12:42:20 PM)

~fast reply~
Perhaps this is just me being stupid again, but I'm confused. A random perusal of collarme shows that EVERYONE lists things that they are OK with and not OK with. Even "no limits" folks list varieties of things they are not OK with. So I don't really understand why this is remarkable or even needs to be understood beyond "chocolate & vanilla". Is it any weirder for them to want only other dom partners than for me to want the things that I want? I don't know that most of what I want is explainable in any meaningful way. We could all speculate a zillion reasons why they want this stuff, but I agree with DemonKia... you'd have to go back to the person in question to really get a grip on it. Anything else is just wild speculation.



SylvereApLeanan -> RE: I dont get it (10/15/2009 1:11:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus

I swear to you all----it is totally possible for two dominants to get together with NO POWER EXCHANGE AT ALL.  Except fighting over the remote, maybe. 


I control the remote.  There's no fighting. 
 
To respond to the OP, it sounds like the s-type expects those "other Dominant lovers" to be involved in an otherwise vanilla relationship.  This is all well and good if both parties agree, but no one, D or s, can dictate how a relationship will evolve.  To think it's possible is unrealistic.



Acer49 -> RE: I dont get it (10/15/2009 3:03:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VampiresLair

I dont understand a recent trend I have noticed. I am hoping someone can enlighten me.

Mind you I am not looking, but I do pop around on profiles quite a bit. One thing I am noticing more and more is that on submissive profiles, they are saying how it is "ok" for the Dominant they want to have other "Dominant lovers" but they want to be the only submissive.

I am all for a submissive who has their own ideas about compatibility. However, telling a Dominant that in order to own you they have to become switches seems a little strange. After all, the switches on here will be quick to tell you how often they are being told that they are not "true" dominants or submissives. Personally, telling the dominant what they can and cant do if you are their property rubs me wrong anyway. If you have things they cant do to you, or things that you cant be in a relationship with, then yes I can see it. But being OK with an open relationship as long as it is one YOU approve of as the sub is sort of overstepping.

Does anyone have an opinion or idea about this that might make it make more sense? Am I missing something?

DV


This is a pre collaring question, so the dominant in question has no right to feel disrespected nor is the submissive under any obligation to consider the dominant's title. The submissive is telling the dominant that they are indeed a valuable submissive and would see the dominant's desire for another submissive as an act of betrayal. The submissive believes that they are unable to sexually satisfy the needs of the potential dominant for whatever reason and is telling them that it is ok to seek others to get that"ONE NEED" met. Pretty gutsy move one the submissive to place temptation in front of the dominant as some feel that an entire relationship can be based on sexual gradification.



lusciouslips19 -> RE: I dont get it (10/15/2009 3:07:23 PM)

I think its the same as a couple where the female is bi and she is allowed to have other female lovers but no other men.



CaringandReal -> RE: I dont get it (10/15/2009 3:23:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

...Does anyone have an opinion or idea about this that might make it make more sense?...


the only way it makes sense to this slave is by remembering that everyone doesn't share the same perception of "submissive" or "submission".  what appears to this slave to be dominant, controlling behavior will most definitely be viewed by another as the behavior of a submissive.
 
just spend some time in the "Foot-Worshipping Dom" thread over in the "Ask a Master" section if you'd like some glaring examples.[:)]
 
[sm=cheerleader.gif]Vive la difference!




That thread is weird with a beard! And it hurts my brain cells.



CaringandReal -> RE: I dont get it (10/15/2009 3:34:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VampiresLair

Perhaps I didnt state the problem I was having with it quite right. They dont say anything about having vanilla lovers, or equals, they specifically say that being with Dominant lovers is OK, but submissives are not. I have been in D/D relationships when there was no power exchange, and I know it can happen. However, what I dont get is why the sub would want to specify that they were ok with their Dominant being with other dominants specifically... not with having other lovers who are not their submissives. After all, if they are JUST lovers, what does the orientation matter?


Oh, I see what you're getting at. Now let me see if I can respond to it.

This sort of submissive is trying to convey that they are open to some other (but not all) types of relationships that are not monogamous. They're showing where they can be flexible. They may have gotten emails from doms criticizing them for being so rigidly monaganous and maybe one or two thought it through, asked themselves "Well, what sort of poly situations would be OK with me?" And they came up with the Dom-dom variety. Then other submissives saw their profiles and thought to themselves, "hey, yeah, I could do that too," and so stuck it in their profiles. Really, it's just an attempt by some subs to be more flexible in a subculture where poly relationships are common, so that they have more opportunities to find a good partner.

They don't say they are open to dom-sub couples, because they imagine that scenario would cause them way too much jealously/insecurity (remember this is a person who is basically monogamous but is making an exception), but they are saying they are somewhat flexible: dom-dom would work for them, emotionally, because the other person would not be fulfilling their role nor competing with them.



submittous -> RE: I dont get it (10/15/2009 8:02:03 PM)

Makes sense to us... We are a Dom/me couple who love each other and would like to add a male and female slave to our family... If a female slave wants to be the only one in the family it seems reasonable to us... we expect to be the only dominants in the family. Why are some of you assuming that a Dom/me couple can't be in love and intimate?



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: I dont get it (10/16/2009 12:30:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VampiresLair

I dont understand a recent trend I have noticed. I am hoping someone can enlighten me.

Mind you I am not looking, but I do pop around on profiles quite a bit. One thing I am noticing more and more is that on submissive profiles, they are saying how it is "ok" for the Dominant they want to have other "Dominant lovers" but they want to be the only submissive.

I am all for a submissive who has their own ideas about compatibility. However, telling a Dominant that in order to own you they have to become switches seems a little strange. After all, the switches on here will be quick to tell you how often they are being told that they are not "true" dominants or submissives. Personally, telling the dominant what they can and cant do if you are their property rubs me wrong anyway. If you have things they cant do to you, or things that you cant be in a relationship with, then yes I can see it. But being OK with an open relationship as long as it is one YOU approve of as the sub is sort of overstepping.

Does anyone have an opinion or idea about this that might make it make more sense? Am I missing something?

DV



~FR~

I read this a little differently... To me, it seems to be more about saying that it's ok for someone to be in a D/D couple and be seeking either a shared submissive or a submissive for one of the D's in a single-end D/s dynamic... but not, for example, a dynamic where the D one is serving would have, say, 2 or 3 s-types, or a dynamic like our household, where the s-type would be collared to the household along with several other servants and wouldn't be the -sole- property of that one D.

I'm in a relationship with multiple dominant partners, and I don't switch or bottom to any of them. One has submitted to me, briefly, and a few bottom to me (because I top with needles and blades and that's not too common), ... though if one of them learned to tattoo... who knows.

Dame Calla



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125