RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??"

RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (Full Version)

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

Message

Underumam -> RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (12/5/2009 7:28:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LPslittleclip for some its like having a engagement ring to show otheres that your off the market so to speak. for some it dosent deter them at all. if it dosent suit you to use it then dont. i was under consideration of my Mistress for a while and i liked having it there to show how proud i was to possibly be Hers. HERE-HERE!!!!

breatheasone -> RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (12/5/2009 9:15:19 AM)
~~FR~~ i saw this sentence in a quote, "i was under consideration of my Mistress for a while and i liked having it there to show how proud i was to possibly be Hers." While i do understand, i personally couldn't get too excited about "possibly" being someones....They either want me or they don't.

Justme696 -> RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (12/5/2009 9:58:48 AM)
At OP ( hi :P ) I start to consider people when I like them..and they like me back ( happens rarely..lol). It is not something that happens in a flash. At the moment that I want them.....I want them...I don't need to consider them anymore. The considering happens for me ..before..the relation starts to become a D/s relation.

crazyml -> RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (12/5/2009 10:40:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sunshinemiss You know... I vascillate with this term. I understand why people want to use it, and all, but frankly I have only one litty bitty thing about it. If I am considering an M type, does that make him under consideration too? If it doesn't, it should... And you know why? Because I'm still in the decision making stage... Funny thing, I've never seen an M type have that on their profile. Bingo! You've helped me figure out my reservation. Initally, when I first saw the term used I cynically wrote it off as an attempt by insecure doms to prevent others snaffling a sub they were chatting to. But then, on talking to a couple of sub fem friends, it does seem to be very useful as a way of slowing down the influx of email from horny doms (although I suspect it only prevents considerate doms - the types that might even make good friends - from emailing rather than the HNG trolls. So now - while I would never suggest to a sub that she put "under consideration" on her profile, I'm a lot less cynical about it - with this one niggling reservation which sunshinemiss has pointed out... It would seem perfectly sensible that if a sub needs to put under consideration on her profile the dom should too.

LadyPact -> RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (12/5/2009 11:13:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: breatheasone ~~FR~~ i saw this sentence in a quote, "i was under consideration of my Mistress for a while and i liked having it there to show how proud i was to possibly be Hers." While i do understand, i personally couldn't get too excited about "possibly" being someones....They either want me or they don't. In all fairness, how do you know that you want someone immediately? Don't you take the time to get to know them? Learn how they feel about authority dynamics, what their position is on world issues, or anything else that you find important? I don't consider Myself omnipotent. I'd rather take the time to really know someone before calling them My own and putting My collar on them.

LeftCoast -> RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (12/5/2009 11:19:57 AM)
.

breatheasone -> RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (12/5/2009 11:26:39 AM)
Was not my intent to be unfair, i was just saying i don't get excited about "possibly" being someones.

everhope -> RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (12/5/2009 11:37:29 AM)
i am in service to Sir. i am not collared. He refers to me as "my girl, brenda", when speaking of me in conversation with others. simple. the only thing "under consideration" in our world is what to do for dinner and the next time we will go to the beach. not today, it is cold here in Daytona 65 degrees. however, in my past, i have been "under consideration" to Dominants that i interacted with in the flesh. several of them i have ongoing forever friendships. i would never do the online (never meeting) "under consideration" thing. if having to deal with unwanted e-mail is a big problem, "consider" yourself blessed. may we all find our bliss.

LafayetteLady -> RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (12/5/2009 11:46:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: breatheasone ~~FR~~ i saw this sentence in a quote, "i was under consideration of my Mistress for a while and i liked having it there to show how proud i was to possibly be Hers." While i do understand, i personally couldn't get too excited about "possibly" being someones....They either want me or they don't. In all fairness, how do you know that you want someone immediately? Don't you take the time to get to know them? Learn how they feel about authority dynamics, what their position is on world issues, or anything else that you find important? I don't consider Myself omnipotent. I'd rather take the time to really know someone before calling them My own and putting My collar on them. But isn't that the "getting to know you phase?" I've seen where it makes a great deal of sense, and the fact that you have put it on your profile is great. However, I take issue to the comparison to an engagement ring. An engagement ring is a statement about a future that WILL happen. There is nothing about it that says "well, MAYBE if all goes well, MAYBE we will wed." It's a definate symbol that the wedding is going to happen. Not so with "under consideration." There is not a given in place and far too often, it is used by dominants as a means of saying "Let me determine whether or not you are good enough for me," without any consideration of whether the submissive is considering the same. Is this more often due to the mindset of the submissive? Probably. But that "mindset" comes from the statements made to them by the dominants in an attempt to bring about a belief that submissives must prove themselves worthy of the dominant, never that it is a mutual thing. Again, in cases like Dame Calla's household, it makes complete sense, as well as it seems so by how you use it. But if we are going to compare the term "under consideration" to something equivalent in the vanilla world, let's be real about it. It is more equal to "dating exclusively" than an engagement. When dating exclusively, the couple is (albeit often subconsciously) "considering" whether or not the other is going to be a good permanent partner, i.e. marriage material. There is no equivalent to an engagement ring in the BDSM. You are either "dating exlcusively" or "married" by vanilla terms in most cases (excluding the situations discussed).

UniqueRaven -> RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (12/5/2009 12:16:12 PM)
Honestly, this is one of those phrases that has been tossed around so long now that it means everything from being considered as a permanent member of a poly slave house to an engagement to simply getting to know each other better. We've seen all of these on this thread. So why the debate over the value of the phrase? Like anything else, the value lies in the system of the couple involved. i have been under consideration before - it meant to me, a hopeless romantic, that he was seriously interested in me, and i in him, enough that we were moving forward with actions of a specific intent to create a dynamic between us. And yes, as a romantic i did have a certain degree of googly-eyed teenager girlishness that was all aflutter with the thoughts of becoming "his". But that's my thing, and i don't expect others to have it. The one who owns me now never said i was under consideration. He took control from day one. But that's a whole different romantic story, which is still unfolding........[:)] julie

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (12/5/2009 12:30:52 PM)
quote: An engagement ring is a statement about a future that WILL happen. I beg to differ... having been engaged twice and having had that engagement NOT end in a wedding (once by my choice, once by the other person's), an engagement ring is NOT a guarantee of marriage. It -is-, in fact, a notice to family, friends, and the general public, that marriage is being seriously considered, not that it was -assured-. On a historical note, that also meant that the couple would also be sleeping together, and essentially living as man and wife, since in most cultures up until the 1500's (and some still today), a marriage that would not produce offspring could not be sealed nor would it be sanctioned... so if the woman wasn't pregnant by the time the wedding date rolled around, that wedding wouldn't happen. So there is a precedent in looking at the 'consideration' collar as an 'engagement ring', if one is pre-disposed in that direction. To me, it is more like the probationary period in a new position, where the new individual figures out whether this is a position xhe can live with, and the new employers decide whether or not this individual is going to fit in with their project model and the requisite duties... but that's just me, and I am notoriously not romantically inclined. Dame Calla

MaamJay -> RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (12/5/2009 1:23:40 PM)
I'm with LadyPact and Calla on this one. Perhaps having different poly-type households is what makes a consideration period more critical than the coming together of a couple. I can understand candy's thing about not being excited about being "possibly" someone's, though I can remember the "getting to know you" period that she and her Dom experienced as she posted about it. They just didn't call it consideration ... and undoubtedly it was mutual, as I believe all consideration phases should be. In fact in our case, it's every bit as important that the sub considers seriously whether he can cope with the situation of being sub to a Domme who also subs to a Master! I could well be in the position of really liking a sub male and him really liking Me ... but I can't then just say "OK you're the one, come and live with Me 24/7!" Because there is someone else in the mix ... Master ... and there's no way I would risk the love and happiness I have with Him, on a situation where Master and My sub don't get on too. This is a sort of family that we are trying to create, so it's important that ALL the relationships work. And unlike a male Dom with a couple of girls, I'm NOT expecting the 2 men to become lovers ... more that they can become good mates in the aussie sense of the word. Generally in the initial getting to know you phase the sub is mainly corresponding with Me, and while I talk about him to Master, He's not able to get to know them as personally until we can actually meet them in the flesh. So in that sense He's a bit "behind" and needs to catch up, and I have to take that into account too. Only on a couple of occasions have I been able to get sub and Him to chat online successfully, generally that has been hard work! Men just don't chat in the same way! So, for us consideration is mutual and essential and I have put it on My profile in the past and will do again. In the vanilla world, for Me it's analogous to the phase between the old friendship ring and the engagement ring. However, I've never liked the term dating, so would never use that even in vanilla-land. Never was too thrilled with the term "seeing someone" either, I might see hundreds of people every day and not be into any one of them! They're just not terms that resonate with Me, but fine if that's what others like to say, just as it's fine if not everyone likes consideration. I'd hope though that this thread clarifies that it's not always about Dominants exploiting subs as is often assumed. As a side note, in my own case as a sub, mostly because of the complications of my marital situation at the time, i was "under consideration" for 2 years while Master and i were living together 24/7 before He collared me! We lived together for 6 months before we bought matching rings as tokens of our mutual consideration of each other for a lifetime future, then 18 months later we made that permanent with a collar. That felt entirely natural to Me and I would be reluctant to collar a sub Myself a whole lot faster. There would definitely be an extended 24/7 period (I'm thinking a year minimum) before a collar would be produced. I'm upfront about that with prospective subs too, which thins out the field a bit as there are quite a few male subs with sub frenzy out there too and just want to feel that buckle on the collar, whereas I want them to be collared heart and mind and that takes longer. Maam Jay aka violet[A]

chiaThePet -> RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (12/5/2009 1:35:14 PM)
I was under Consideration once, but he was so heavy it was bruising my ribs and hurting my back. Not to worry though. I've learned to get him off me by playing his favorite musical instrument. The dinner bell. chia* (the pet)

GYPSYMAMBO -> RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (12/5/2009 1:55:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex I don't know what's wrong with "Currently dating someone." Nothing...this forum is an exchange of views and contribution of ideas.. I also have a collar of consideration showing attentive respect..thougthful regard for..and the degree of deliberation and importance the person has in my life.. ...what's wrong with a going steady ring? nothing... it's just my way.. and I make sure I am clear to those(subs) I interact with so no assumptions are made.. GM

crazyml -> RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (12/5/2009 1:57:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW quote: An engagement ring is a statement about a future that WILL happen. I beg to differ... having been engaged twice and having had that engagement NOT end in a wedding (once by my choice, once by the other person's), an engagement ring is NOT a guarantee of marriage. It -is-, in fact, a notice to family, friends, and the general public, that marriage is being seriously considered, not that it was -assured-. I beg to differ with your differing... An engagement is a promise to marry in the future. It is not a statement that marriage is being seriously considered - it is a promise that it will happen. It is no longer a legally binding promise, nor is it a promise that people take all that seriously these days, but it is a promise. The concept of engagement as opposed to Betrothal (which is a completely different kettle of fish) was introduced 1215 in at the Fourth Lateran Council, which decreed that "marriages are to be ... announced publicly in the churches by the priests during a suitable and fixed time, so that if legitimate impediments exist, they may be made known. (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Betrothal). quote: On a historical note, that also meant that the couple would also be sleeping together, and essentially living as man and wife, since in most cultures up until the 1500's (and some still today), a marriage that would not produce offspring could not be sealed nor would it be sanctioned... so if the woman wasn't pregnant by the time the wedding date rolled around, that wedding wouldn't happen. This isn't accurate at all. Some cultures had the concept of a "trial marriage" which is quite distinct from an Engagement or a Betrothal. Marriages had to be consumated, and in some cultures lack of offspring might be grounds for divorce, but the notion that people in most cultures had to get up the duff before getting their marriage could be sanctioned is simply not true. quote: So there is a precedent in looking at the 'consideration' collar as an 'engagement ring', if one is pre-disposed in that direction. To me, it is more like the probationary period in a new position, where the new individual figures out whether this is a position xhe can live with, and the new employers decide whether or not this individual is going to fit in with their project model and the requisite duties... but that's just me, and I am notoriously not romantically inclined. Dame Calla I think this is a pretty good take on the "consideration" collar as it happens.

HisSweetElysium -> RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (12/5/2009 3:32:07 PM)
Hi D, thanks for posting in my seriously provocative post, LOL ;)

HisSweetElysium -> RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (12/5/2009 3:36:31 PM)
I've appreciated reading all comments and thoughts on this subject. I guess after considering all points of view, a "mutual consideration" is more appropriate, and should be used. I too take the "under consideration" status of a sub and no corresponding comments on behalf of a Dom to be like being pissed on as territory (not in a sexy way [8D]) and I hope those who are "under consideration" do their own considering as well and not get carried away too quickly in terms of seeking fulfillment at all costs. Thanks for the lively discussion!

Aileen1968 -> RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (12/5/2009 4:20:53 PM)
If someone told me I was under consideration I would just laugh and laugh in his face. I mean seriously. We are grown adults aren't we? This seems so junior high. Anyone that needs these kinds of phrases or mindsets would not be a match for me. I'm a big fan of talking like functional adults and not like it's a scene on a stage. Just not my thing.

GYPSYMAMBO -> RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (12/5/2009 4:57:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aileen1968 This seems so junior high. *For some of us old farts some of it is OLD SCHOOL* GM

Aileen1968 -> RE: So unsublike, I have to post it here --"under consideration??" (12/5/2009 5:04:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GYPSYMAMBO quote: ORIGINAL: Aileen1968 This seems so junior high. *For some of us old farts some of it is OLD SCHOOL* GM I'm only five years younger than you...I'm an old fart too.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875