RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it?

RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (Full Version)

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

Message

LadyPact -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 11:38:36 AM)
Same here. This one obviously has no clue about kinky relationships and I'm beginning to think he's got no clue about relationships at all. I mean, it couldn't possibly be that the last time I wanted to go get My nails done that My husband opened his wallet and gave Me the cash. Or that the last whip that was added to My collection was one that he bought for Me, just because I was having so much fun playing with it in the store. Or that he's drawn My bath for Me, just because he knew I'd enjoy it. Or a hundred other things that I could mention, but don't have the patience to type out. Nope. None of that stuff happens in the vanilla world, so it obviously can't happen in the world of BDSM.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 11:39:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot If I was a domme I would have a really good time dominating a poor creature online, and this in itself would be enough for me. But you aren't a Domme, so you've never seen someone take it up close and personal-the smell of their sweat, the tiny flinches, the indrawn hisses of breath, the kind of spaced-out look afterwards, the cuddling... You can say that it would be enough for you, but that's because you've not had the real thing (from the sexy side of the kneel, at least, although I'm not sure how much experience you've had as a sub). quote: I could also instruct her how to please herself and I would also be pleasing myself while watching her obeying my requests in sheer delight. Aaaaand there we go with the 'telling the sub how to masturbate' thing. Put it down to wiring, ok? The majority of women who post on these boards (myself included) really don't seem that fussed about the idea of directing someone to wank while they watch a grainy, badly-lit image of it happening... I'm assuming it's a guy thing, cause otherwise I'm mystified.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 11:41:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I mean, it couldn't possibly be that the last time I wanted to go get My nails done that My husband opened his wallet and gave Me the cash. Or that the last whip that was added to My collection was one that he bought for Me, just because I was having so much fun playing with it in the store. Or that he's drawn My bath for Me, just because he knew I'd enjoy it. I have to say, LP: how dare you take advantage of your husband in such a way? Remember, if he's giving you practical or financial support then he shouldn't be with you. [:D]

ReginaMirus -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 11:42:27 AM)
::GASP:: And how DARE you expect that he's going to do anything for you that would require his time, his efforts and ::GASP:: his MONEY! He's offering up his ass for "service", apparently we should be grateful and delighted for what we do get. [8\|]

Jeffff -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 11:43:13 AM)
He is financially dominating her! Pact!!!!!!!!!... don't give him your checking account number!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't tell you how humiliated I am every time I hold the door for a woman. I feel so cheap and dirty

laurell3 -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 11:44:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot Well, it depends on how submissive this guy really is. If he is genuinely submissive and really wants to please a girl online, he would do it the following way. quote: My advice was actually that people don't get in a RELATIONSHIP where they are not desired as persons As many people have pointed out, the problem that you have is you are seeing things in a manner you would see agreeable and attempting to apply it to all people. I think that's probably pretty common in the beginning. I mean, what other things do you have to draw upon at the point. However, fairly early in the "community" game, it should strike you that there is a WIDE spectrum here. Not everyone has the need for what you or I do, some people have the opposite and there is no true, genuine or real submission or dominance. People get in relationships for all sorts of reasons. People give tributes, allow themselves to be hurt, humiliated, degraded and many other things you or others might find reprehensible for all sorts of reasons. We cannot presume that we know why or that their way is wrong. There is no one good or bad, (with a few exceptions). There is what is good for them and their partner. Any type of financial domination would not be something I would be interested in, however, I recognize that masochism/sadism are certainly not things many others would be interested in and I very much am. You see it's a slippery slope when you start saying someone is wrong for wiittd, because there are many who would say that about you too.

SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 11:48:22 AM)
quote: Remember, if he's giving you practical or financial support then he shouldn't be with you. You have all probably considered what I wrote too literally. Also you forgot that I also wrote this: quote: P.S. I'm not going to say that serving your partner in practical things is bad. Of course that you will do all the best for their wellbeing, including practical, utilitarian and economical support. I am only saying that you shouldn't be in a relationship in which you would be unneeded and undesired without this component. So if he is giving practical and financial support to you, he SHOULD be in a relationship with you. He shouldn't be in a relationship with you only if this practical and financial support is the ONLY thing you want him for.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 11:50:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot You have all probably considered what I wrote too literally. Honey, there's this thing called 'teasing'. You may have come across it before. I was 'teasing' (if by chance you haven't come across it, look it up) Lady P about what she had written...

Jeffff -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 11:54:41 AM)
Turns off his cam

leadership527 -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 11:56:29 AM)
But Carol has my checking account number and free access to it and she's my slave.... is that like "financially dominating from the bottom?" Man oh man, this whole BDSM thing gets more confusing the more I learn.

SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 11:58:15 AM)
quote: Honey, there's this thing called 'teasing'. You may have come across it before. I was 'teasing' (if by chance you haven't come across it, look it up) Lady P about what she had written... Teasing or not teasing, you used what I wrote in a way which showed that you think what I wrote was ridiculous.

Rochsub2009 -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 12:00:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot But when he gets sex and she gets money, this is somehow wrong in my opinion I don't know why. But you do understand that this is an arrangement that is as old as the human species. Women have always married for money. It is a biological way of insuring the security of herself and her offspring. Similarly, men have always paid for sex. That's why prostitution is called the "world's oldest profession". Society can be so puritanical at times. i personally see no reason for prostitution to be illegal. If a woman wants to sell her body, and a man wants to pay for it, where's the problem? Moreover, if a woman wants to marry a man because he's rich, why is that wrong? Who said love was a better reason for a relationship than money. Heck, i'll bet the divorce rate for marriages based on love is higher than it is for marriages based on money (i have no basis for this, so you statistics nerds don't need to ask me for my evidence)

SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 12:08:45 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot But when he gets sex and she gets money, this is somehow wrong in my opinion I don't know why. But you do understand that this is an arrangement that is as old as the human species. Women have always married for money. It is a biological way of insuring the security of herself and her offspring. Similarly, men have always paid for sex. That's why prostitution is called the "world's oldest profession". Society can be so puritanical at times. i personally see no reason for prostitution to be illegal. If a woman wants to sell her body, and a man wants to pay for it, where's the problem? Moreover, if a woman wants to marry a man because he's rich, why is that wrong? Who said love was a better reason for a relationship than money. Heck, i'll bet the divorce rate for marriages based on love is higher than it is for marriages based on money (i have no basis for this, so you statistics nerds don't need to ask me for my evidence) Maybe you are 100% right. But for me it is somehow "too much of reality" and "too big disillusionment". Even if you are right about divorce rates being higher in marriages based on love than in marriages based on money, I still FEEL, simply FEEL that love is a better thing to base marriage on, then money. By "love" I don't consider only lust, sexual attraction and such things, but, altruism complementing each other's personality, caring for each other etc.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 12:09:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot Teasing or not teasing, you used what I wrote in a way which showed that you think what I wrote was ridiculous. I do think what you wrote was ridiculous. But that wasn't because I took it too literally-it's because it's ridiculous. I know exactly what you meant, but knowing what you mean is not the same as considering said meaning sensible. We judge our relationships by what other people can do for us and what we can do for them. That's how humans work. Some of that stuff is mushy emotional stuff: I love her because of the way she listens to me talk about my day; I love her because I can make her smile; I love her because she can discuss poetry and history and current affairs with me without making me want to cringe... Some of that stuff is more practical, even if you don't want to admit it: I love her because she carries stuff for me when my legs hurt; I love her because she knows that I hate hanging out the washing so she does it for me (and I do the equivalent chore that this theoretical woman hates); I love her because she buys me chocolate cake... It's fine for you to say 'I want a relationship where the love is based solely on things from the first category'. What's not fine is to say 'all people should have such a relationship'-that's just not your call.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 12:11:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 But Carol has my checking account number and free access to it and she's my slave.... is that like "financially dominating from the bottom?" Only if she uses it to buy you shoes... Or something...

LadyNTrainer -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 12:14:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot in which a guy said he was in a search for an online domme, but only if she doesn't require a tribute. Most of other posters told him that he is very unlikely to find such a domme, because she is not getting anything in return. I agree. If my hand cannot meet yielding flesh, if I cannot feel him shiver at my touch, if I don't smell and taste his submission in every little physical response, there's not much in it for me. Watching grainy pictures of some guy wanking when I don't know him and really can't get to know him on a physical level is probably not going to get me wet, even if he's pretty. I can do it skillfully, and I can do it to very good effect on a client's health and fitness, and I am willing to trade that skill for a fair wage. But no, I won't do it for free. I don't get enough out of it on my end to be willing to give that level of time and energy to a stranger just because he wants it. quote: If this is really the case with online dommes, then no genuine submissive should be in relationship with them, because they (the dommes) aren't really enjoying it or getting off of it, and if this is the case, by submitting you are not pleasing them at all. And what is the purpose of being submissive - to please a domme, to satisfy her. And here you have the crux of it. No, you're not being submissive. You have a fetish itch and she's the service provider you've hired to scratch it. That's a perfectly fair transaction between grown-ups who both know what they're getting, and what they're not getting. It shouldn't really be confused with actual D/s. quote: If you can't satisfy her, she charges you for spending (actually wasting) her time on you. Nail. Head. Hammer. Hit. If you can't or won't give me what I want as a human being in a personal relationship, then your choice is either to move on or to engage me professionally. I don't know many people who feel much differently. If your best buddy Frank is a skilled plumber, and you have a history of being good friends and doing stuff for each other, you can ask him to unblock your toilet when it jams and have a reasonable expectation that he'll do it. He knows he can count on you to be there for him, so he'll be there for you too. If you are a total stranger and you knock on Frank's door and ask him to unblock your toilet, you had better have your checkbook in hand. Pro domme sessions are work. They take time and energy and skill. If you have good business ethics, it's completely fair and honest work. But it is still work, since you're doing it for someone you don't necessarily have a reciprocal relationship history with, and there isn't enough of a physical or emotional connection for a domme to necessarily get a lot out of it sexually or personally. I don't feel I am wasting my time helping my submissive fitness clients get into better shape than they've ever been in their lives by motivating them with kink. I like doing a good job and making a positive difference for them. I don't generally get wet from it, but it does satisfy me to do that work well. quote: Some may argue that the financial tribute is also a way to please, which may be the case, but in most cases it is not pleasing per se, but compensation for wasting some of her time, she could spend more productively. What do you call the wage you pay to Frank (assuming you guys don't have a personal relationship) for servicing your plumbing? It's compensation, and it's fair. If you aren't paying him, and you don't have any other form of reciprocity going, do you think Frank can afford to be spending his time working in your house when he can be doing the same thing for his paying customers and for his best friends who can be counted on to help him out in turn? quote: So I would recommend submissives to only be with dommes who genuinely get wet when they see them on they knees, and not those who are just providing a fantasy (which is not at all exciting for themselves) and charging for it. I would recommend that submissives seeking a personal, romantic and sexual relationship only date dommes who are genuinely excited by their submission. Submissives or fetishists who have a need they want satisfied, but who aren't currently in a relationship, do have the option of fairly compensating a fetish service provider to get their itch scratched when and how they want it. Not all "submissives" are actually seeking such a relationship, or are willing to give as much of themselves as it takes to be a good primary partner to a domme, or to anyone for that matter. If you are able to give with your wallet but can't or won't give with your heart and your physical time and energy, please hire a pro and don't lie to women who have their hopes up of finding a real relationship. That is much less hurtful to everyone involved.

LadyPact -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 12:19:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious I do think what you wrote was ridiculous. But that wasn't because I took it too literally-it's because it's ridiculous. I know exactly what you meant, but knowing what you mean is not the same as considering said meaning sensible. We judge our relationships by what other people can do for us and what we can do for them. That's how humans work. Some of that stuff is mushy emotional stuff: I love her because of the way she listens to me talk about my day; I love her because I can make her smile; I love her because she can discuss poetry and history and current affairs with me without making me want to cringe... Some of that stuff is more practical, even if you don't want to admit it: I love her because she carries stuff for me when my legs hurt; I love her because she knows that I hate hanging out the washing so she does it for me (and I do the equivalent chore that this theoretical woman hates); I love her because she buys me chocolate cake... It's fine for you to say 'I want a relationship where the love is based solely on things from the first category'. What's not fine is to say 'all people should have such a relationship'-that's just not your call. The highlighted above. Absolutely. There's a really old piece that's floating around out there somewhere. The story behind it was an interview of a bunch of five year olds on what they thought love was. "Love is when Grandpa paints Grandma's toenails because she has arthritis, even though he has arthritis, too."

SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 12:21:01 PM)
VaguelyCurious, could you please consider this again. I wrote this in my very first post in this thread. quote: P.S. I'm not going to say that serving your partner in practical things is bad. Of course that you will do all the best for their wellbeing, including practical, utilitarian and economical support. I am only saying that you shouldn't be in a relationship in which you would be unneeded and undesired without this component. This means that you shouldn't be in a relationship with someone if the ONLY thing he loves you for is your money or other practical, economic or utilitarian things you do to him or her. So what if you get fired, or break your leg, or have an accident and become paraplegic? When you become unable to work for your partner you become useless, so the relationship will inevitably end if it is ONLY based on your money and the things you do for him/her.

blueeyedbbwsub -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 12:30:59 PM)
Socrates, Just stop trying to make sense of what you don't think you can understand. I usually go through all the posts in a thread to see what's being said, to learn what I can. Not in your case, not anymore. It's just not worth the headache I can get all by my lil lonesome. You pose questions or spout nonsense and when you're given an honest answer, based on each persons own experience you reject it out of hand because it's not how you see things. You are entirely too literal and in life that just won't work. Please do us all a favor, find kevin, the two of you start your own thread and go at it. Make life much simpler for people who DO understand how relationships work, who can separate fiction from reality. This is where the rubber hits the road.

Jeffff -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 12:36:59 PM)
What happens if you are doing telemarketing for free!!!! the HORROR!

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875