Monogamy Agonistes (Full Version)

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



Message


masterpdg -> Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 4:09:03 PM)

A few words on monogamy because they seem necessary. It is difficult to think of an idea that has been more damaging to women in this lifestyle particularly. From a theoretical perspective it undermines dominance and submission as it is the slave/sub placing a jealously and selfishness above her owner’s desires. It is an attempt by property to limit her owner’s pleasure, use and training. Indeed, breaking the deeply ingrained societal bias towards this historically recent concept is crucial to the proper training of a woman. Ultimately, a slave lives and wants to live for her owner’s pleasure not to retard that pleasure and when she can accept that it is normal for any man, let alone an owner of women, to seek numerous pleasures and conquests, she will gain a deeper is not broadly appreciated joy of knowing her surrender is without strings and that she did not have to limit her owner’s pleasure to find her happiness.

That was, of course, a theoretic discussion of power dynamics. There are equally important pragmatic concerns. Initially, many men who agree to the idea of monogamy are simply appeasing (a bad quality in Chamberlin or a Master) and will stray when opportunity presents itself (this is not unique to BDSM obviously although as many into the lifestyle are a touch hypersexual, it may have greater frequency although I have not studied the issue). Where as a man who is honest and upfront about requiring the true submission of his slaves, will most likely be much more honest in general. Moreover, a woman understanding her place and properly trained will not suffer the heartbreak extremely common to women who limited their owner and discovered that his honor was lacking (indeed, has anything caused women more emotional pain than this unnatural expectation?)

Another pragmatic concern is desirability of older single men, and this related most directly to women seeking experienced men above 30 or so. Men who have unable to acquire ownership of a woman by this age will often (not always of course) have failed for legitimate reasons. A single man of forty on this site may well be one or more of the following, live with his mother, be unemployed, have an action figure collection, speak Klingon, read comic books or be overwhelmingly unappealing physically (of course, there are exceptions). My general view of this lifestyle has always been because of the extreme vulnerability slaves are always apt to find themselves in, the quality of the owner is paramount and the conventionality of the situation secondary if not tertiary. Often divorced men will have less negatives at least in traditional dating, but in the lifestyle there is the concern that they have had a woman they could not train and that may sometimes speak to their skills as a Master.

I have met some very nice woman among an amazing amount of frauds on this site, but have also been told by those seeking total slavery and submission that they do not do ‘poly’ or want monogamy. They only dilute the pool of potential owners to exclude the most desirable and talented, set themselves up for almost inevitable heartbreak and undermine the thing they think they are offering. I hope these words help woman, even if just a bit, that the quality of the owner is determined by his honestly and his dominance not his conventionality.




WyldHrt -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 4:13:49 PM)

Was there a question somewhere in that heap of dung you just posted? 




stef -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 4:18:11 PM)

Hey.  Dung is useful.

~stef




SorceressJ -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 4:20:50 PM)

Trolls. The other white meat.
[sm=dontfeedtrolls.gif][sm=dancing.gif][sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]




Aileen1968 -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 4:21:21 PM)

Oh please. That is just retarded.
Just because you want a polyamorous relationship doesn't mean everyone does.
And it certainly doesn't make you a better person.




VaguelyCurious -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 4:25:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: masterpdg

From a theoretical perspective it undermines dominance and submission as it is the slave/sub placing a jealously and selfishness above her owner’s desires.

See, I think of this as a compatibility issue-she's only doing that if she knowingly enters a relationship with a poly dom and then makes them both miserable.

If she refuses to engage with poly doms (which is what you seem to be complaining about) then she is doing nothing of the sort-she is avoiding what she knows will be an unsuccessful relationship.

I foresee that you will regret starting this thread, because the majority of people reading it will think that your post was stupid.  (For the record, on this occasion I am very much one of the majority.)




Missokyst -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 4:27:17 PM)

LOL thanks for that.  I was thinking my mind was still clouded from being ill.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyldHrt

Was there a question somewhere in that heap of dung you just posted? 




ResidentSadist -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 4:28:35 PM)

Hey, I agree 100% with the ... oh nevermind.  [:D]




smartsub10 -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 4:31:34 PM)

So, if we all don't want the type of relationship that you think is right, we're all fakes?

Hey, if you want poly, go for it.  I don't and I know there are dominant men who don't.

And your assessment of men who are over 40 and single is pretty obnoxious and arrogant.




JstAnotherSub -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 4:50:23 PM)

Well, as soon as I saw a huge post beginning with the line "A few words on monogamy", I figured if you don't even know what a few words are, no way you have anything smart to say regarding monogamy.

So I quit reading right there.

I hope I didn't miss the most enlightening post in the decade.




KatyLied -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 4:57:22 PM)

quote:

A single man of forty on this site may well be one or more of the following, live with his mother, be unemployed, have an action figure collection, speak Klingon, read comic books or be overwhelmingly unappealing physically (of course, there are exceptions).


Wow, broad sweeping generalization, much?




SorceressJ -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:08:12 PM)

As a Trekkie with only one or two action figures and without a penis (since I'm a Goil, yanno), I found this silly presumption about men of My age group on this site rather humorous.
P.S. I only speak a little Klingon, but I have the entire original Star Trek series on My comp, and am learning to write in Tolkein's High Elvish. It's really pretty if you can get the squigglies right..




DaddysInkedSlut -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:10:28 PM)



OP
I gather than you are frustrated by the fact that the submissives /slaves that you approach are not looking for a poly relationship. Therefore by you definition they are fake and the men that they seek (monogomous men) are not truly dominant because in you opinion they are allowing the submissive / slave to dictate the type of relationship that they have.

Here is a novel idea, they are simply not interested in you or a poly realationship. How does that make them less of a submissive or slave?

Do you assume that everyone that labels themselves as a submissive or slave should fall to their knees and suck you off or beg to be part of your poly household?




masterpdg -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:19:21 PM)

I am fairly sure I never used the word fake. Interesting that it should be used repeatedly in response. I fully believe that polygamy is not necessary for a good relationship. I say only that a woman completely serious about belong and being owned should never try to limit her Master's enjoyment and understand that cultural biases should not stand in the way of dedication to service that is all. I hope every young lady on here finds the Master of her dreams, but no one has addressed the substantive arguments.




BeIgnited -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:20:24 PM)

I really have to wonder if the same logic would apply to Fdom/msub couples given the OP says

quote:

it is normal for any man, let alone an owner of women, to seek numerous pleasures and conquests,
 




Tantriqu -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:23:18 PM)

Wow, lotsa troll-fewmets on the interwebz today. I wonder if it's a sunspot thang . . .

Anyway; never been My problem; all My subs are guys in their 20's and 30's, and all monogamous. Doesn't damage 'em or My relationship with 'em at all. This is fundamental compatability.
Or are you blaming Delilah's yoke and 'foul effeminancy' for your troubs? So, samson, volunteer for a hospital charity which is where the *good* people are, 'cuz right now, as Milton sez, you're the one ''blind among enemies, o worse than chains,'' and pulling your house-of-cards temple down around your own head.
Remember, whining is undomly: we all have to deal with subs thinking they want something and pulling back after we've spent time trying to get to know them and thinking they might be the next 'one'. Just dust yourself off, ponder what it is about your expectations that keeps frightening women off, write a more realistic profile, and think 'Next!'.
Otherwise, it's just mom's-basement misogynistic masturbation, rather than catharsis about another failure to communicate.




KatyLied -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:25:51 PM)

How would you feel if your s-type agreed to polyamory, as long as she could also pursue relationships with others?  Being a kind and thoughtful owner, I am sure you would want your property to be happy, even if it means being with others from time to time.




masterpdg -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:28:20 PM)

But is it wrong?




DaddysInkedSlut -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:28:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: masterpdg

I say only that a woman completely serious about belong and being owned should never try to limit her Master's enjoyment


So in your opinion a woman who claims to be submissive or slave should not have limits or preferences regarding her relationship dynmics or style?

Do you believe that the dom/owner is the only on in a relationship who should be fulfilled or receive enjoyment? If you want your submissive /slave to receive enjoyment and to be fulfilled would you allow her to get that from others as well?




LadyPact -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:29:24 PM)

In My opinion as a poly person, there are absolutely folks out there who are not wired for poly.  From My personal observation, I happen to think that more people are wired for monogamy.  It's just the way I see it.

This doesn't make one group right or wrong.  It means that individuals (hopefully) know how they are wired and what works for them.  There are even fewer folks who are willing to be added to an existing couple.  That's just the way it is and I don't blame anyone for it.  Personally, I'd rather have folks tell Me that poly won't work for them than those who aren't cut out for it make the attempt with a disastrous result.

As to the rest of your post, it bordered on insulting.  I would encourage you to remember that as you are preaching about the place of a man and a woman in this lifestyle, that not everyone fits into your beliefs.  Dominant is not a term of male gender.




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625