RE: Monogamy Agonistes (Full Version)

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



Message

masterpdg -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:30:08 PM)

If she want the full power dynamics of slavery, no.



Elisabella -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:32:05 PM)

quote:

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?)


Sorry but I just need to correct this.

Your post is about TPE slaves, not about women as a whole. It's careless to make statements like "a woman understanding her place and properly trained" when you're only talking about a very, very, very small subset of women who actually desire to be in that place and properly trained.

Aside from that, I see your point. I laugh at "no limits slaves" who expect monogamy. I don't think their desire for monogamy is unreasonable or anything, I just laugh at the idea that they're "no limits" slaves.

Anyway you seem like a decent enough guy, cheers and good luck finding the type of slave you're looking for.



SorceressJ -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:32:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: masterpdg

But is it wrong?


It's wrong of you to think that the relationship should be that one-sided and that it's
-All About You-, yes. Subs and slaves are still human beings with their own thoughts, needs and feelings, and there is no way you're going to get around that, sorry.



DaddysInkedSlut -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:33:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: masterpdg

If she want the full power dynamics of slavery, no.


So by your own definition and words if she does not want a poly relationship she is not a slave?

ETA: If someone claims to be something that according to you they are not (a slave) are you not calling them fake?



SpiritedRadiance -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:34:12 PM)

Ya gotta love the trolls in your inbox making threads..

OP People have limitations be they physical mental or emotional, Im sure you wouldnt have a slave with bad knees kneeling all the time and see that as limiting your power or a diabetic slave who wont bring cookies into the house for her illness as limiting your power.

I see poly as something that will be mentally and emotionally harming to me, there for engaging to be something that will cause lasting negative effects.

I dont seek a poly owner and politely (okay some times snarkily...)tell anyone who is poly my stance on monogamy and that i will not engage.

Im not limiting my owner, because those men will never become my owner, My owner has agreed that by owning me hes monogamous, If hes a liar then theres damage again this is not me limiting my owner but expressing my needs that must be met for a relationship to happen.

Good luck and I hope you find what you seek, but ranting that subs are turning you down might be because you DONT read the profiles first or disregard a sub when she says shes monogamous....



Elisabella -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:34:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddysInkedSlut


quote:

ORIGINAL: masterpdg

If she want the full power dynamics of slavery, no.


So by your own definition and words if she does not want a poly relationship she is not a slave?


No he is saying that if the slave does not want to submit to the will of her master she is not a slave.

I don't disagree.



smartsub10 -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:35:43 PM)

quote:

I am fairly sure I never used the word fake.


You don't have to use the word to imply it.  You do claim to be very intelligent in your profile so I would assume you would know that.  But, I digress.

You are essentially saying that all submissive women should not have any requirements of their own for a satisfying relationship with a dominant man - if they are truly submissive.  Am I wrong?







angelikaJ -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:35:56 PM)

Relationships are between the individuals that comprise them.
The configuration of the relationship between my Master and I is between us.

You apparently feel that the women who want for something different than you do are delusional.
The men that they are compatible with probably would be in disagreement with you.
It doesn't matter though, because it is after all, their relationship.

You are looking for something markedly different and are evidently upfront about it.
You will find people who fit with what you look for.
Win-win.

However, trying to convince other people that your way is right and theirs is wrong _is_ lose-lose.




DaddysInkedSlut -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:36:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddysInkedSlut


quote:

ORIGINAL: masterpdg

If she want the full power dynamics of slavery, no.


So by your own definition and words if she does not want a poly relationship she is not a slave?


No he is saying that if the slave does not want to submit to the will of her master she is not a slave.

I don't disagree.


So if according to you and him a master tells his slave to jump off a cliff. She is supposed to simply because she is his slave? Seriously? Lol



Elisabella -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:40:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddysInkedSlut

So if according to you and him a master tells his slave to jump off a cliff. She is supposed to simply because she is his slave? Seriously? Lol


No, she's not supposed to...but she does have a choice to make, whether she wants to be alive and unowned, or dead and enslaved.

[:D]



SorceressJ -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:40:38 PM)

What this man needs is a Gorean kajira, or the closest relative approximation thereto that Urth, I mean Earth can offer him. Kajirae are as fully into the whole He's-always-right-and-can-do-whatever-he-wants-and-can-have-other-slaves-and-this-girl-is-only-here-to-serve-and-be-his thing as any I have had the odd furtune to know. Srsly, and said with zero insult intended to the OP or to any girls with such inclinations. To each their own happiness, IMO.



masterpdg -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:41:26 PM)

Elisabella,

Thanks for interpreting correctly.



masterpdg -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:42:58 PM)

Are we comparing monogamy to a physical disability.



SpiritedRadiance -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:44:52 PM)

To some monogamy is a mental requirement just like an owner would need to understand the need to round the clock food for a diabetic and to not do certain play for someone with vertigo. So Yes the need for monogamy can be a mental requirement for a someones health and well being.



BonesFromAsh -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:46:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: masterpdg

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?)



Unnatural expectation...honor in their partner? Are you sugessting that if a d-type is up front with the fact that s/he is unwilling to commit to a monogamous situation, a s-type should accept what s/he can or can't offer because, well...s/he is being honest and it would be dismissive of the s-type to have higher expectations of their own?

Everyone has acceptable standards for a relationship dynamic that they're unwilling to compromise on. Isn't the same woman displaying honesty by sticking to her own standards and expectations, regardless of her label or oreintation?


quote:


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.


Interesting...so we come back to honor, expectations and standards. Would you be pleased with a s-type who was willing to accept ANYONE, a person who had ZERO standards in regards to who s/he offered submission to?

Please note...this has nothing to do with gender as dominance is found in male and female, as is submission. That being the case, isn't this simply a matter of compatibility? I would not be compatible with someone who did not meet my standards. Such is life.



Elisabella -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:46:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SorceressJ

What this man needs is a Gorean kajira, or the closest relative approximation thereto that Urth, I mean Earth can offer him. Kajirae are as fully into the whole He's-always-right-and-can-do-whatever-he-wants-and-can-have-other-slaves-and-this-girl-is-only-here-to-serve-and-be-his thing as any I have had the odd furtune to know. Srsly, and said with zero insult intended to the OP or to any girls with such inclinations. To each their own happiness, IMO.



Ahaha I think you're right.

Though I do have serious doubts about whether that is a sustainable lifestyle. I guess the OP can try it, he does seem to have a clue about desirability, and would probably realize that if he does find a beautiful woman who wants to be his TPE slave, she also could have her choice of men and so completely ignoring her needs is not going to be the best way to keep her around.

The Gor thing was written about people who were forced into legal slavery and had no other options. Presumably that's not what the OP is going for, so he might not find it in his best interests to emulate that attitude.



leadership527 -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:47:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: masterpdg
If she want the full power dynamics of slavery, no.

God, I actually hate to say this, but "I agree".



SorceressJ -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:49:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: masterpdg

Are we comparing monogamy to a physical disability.


No, I don't believe we are, but it certainly sounded to us like you were doing just that; hence, the bristling of happily monogamous feathers that you have experienced here this evening.
Polyamory is not necessary for satisfaction and happiness, regardless of station. If it is necessary for you in particular, then your mission becomes to find a girl (or girls) who feel the same, and would be happy thus in your care. A good Master desires the happiness of His property, because happy slaves are better slaves, and go about their service with obvious joie de vive that makes them even more attractive and is a compliment to their Owner.
Is it not so? Or would you prefer to simply exercise your authority without such regard..?



Aileen1968 -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:50:56 PM)

This is all under the assumption that someone who is dominant wants to fuck more than one person.
It assumes that is a requirement to be truly and happily dominant.
That's bullshit to me.



Twoshoes -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:52:15 PM)

I'm confused on the topic of open relationships, myself. Hopefully, living longer will make it clearer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious


I foresee that you will regret starting this thread, because the majority of people reading it will think that your post was stupid.



No kidding...

OP: If you want to influence people's core values, you might be better off making appeals to empathy/other values instead of "being right". Either way, it prolly won't work on a internet forum even if you're a highly inspirational individual.



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875