RE: Monogamy Agonistes (Full Version)

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



Message


DarkSteven -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:53:20 PM)

OP, I'm an engineer.  I think like one.

In your entire diatribe, you have given your opinions, stated calmly as if they were facts, without a single citation or reference.  That drives me nuts.  I've had to sit through a crapload of Six Sigma stuff in which all case histories are manufactured.  When there are no real life examples... I wonder why.

You seem to define slavery relationships as ones where the man is the Master and the woman is the slave.  I'm not sure why you dismissed Mistress-slave relationships and gay and lesbian ones.  Why?

I'm not exactly disagreeing with you as much as asking you to provide something other than offhand musings that I can agree or disagree with.






jujubeeMB -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 5:59:09 PM)

LOL.

Good one, OP. That was hilarious.




SorceressJ -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 6:07:42 PM)

WOW, Steven, that was deep.. and one of the best and most commendable responses on this thread.
*waits with bated breath for the answers*




CaringandReal -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 6:17:14 PM)

quote:

and when she can accept that it is normal for any man, let alone an owner of women, to seek numerous pleasures and conquests,


Except that isn't true for every dominant. It isn't "normal" or even desirable for some. I read dominant profiles very regularly. What they want, in terms of mongamy vs. polygamy, varies widely. I think it follows that submissives who have strong feelings about this issue one way or the other can hope to find a dominant with a "wild-oat-sowing" style that makes them comfortable. What you're describing in your post does apply to slaves, clearly, yet even members of that group may "luck out." I say "luck out" because it's not that clear to me that people who are oriented toward slavery choose their masters or mistresses.

There is also the situation, perhaps not so rare, where a dominant capable of or enjoying polygamy may of his or her own choosing not practice it after securing a submissive who is very sensitive toward that issue and clearly experiencing pain when he screws other women. My former master was that type of dominant, for the most part.

There's a wide variety of attitudes out there. Clearly to you polygamy is natural, but there are plenty of other dominant men, based on what I read, that haven't come to that same conclusion. I do not believe that all of them are are lying just to please the sub ladies, particularly in those cases where the rest of their profiles ring with integrity.

-----------------------

Beignited said: "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,"

I am not an expert on these sorts of relationships, but based on the dominant female posts I have read here over the years, this (a dominant's enjoyment of polygamy) seems quite common, which is one reason why I was very careful with my pronouns, above, when responding to masterpdg. I don't think of male-dominant polygamy as a separate creature from female-dominant polygamy. I see it more--particularly in strong control relationships--as "the person in control gets to screw whomever they want, whereas the person who is controlled screws whomever s/he is ordered to screw."





Missokyst -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 6:17:34 PM)

Every day and every way I am glad I do not identify as a slave, if in being a slave it means my happiness is soley defined by another.  I acually have needs.  The OP however, is stating sub/slaves should be ok with poly if they want the whole package.  His package better be damn fine for someone who has needs to consider his poly choice acceptable.  Based on the presentation, I doubt it.




littlewonder -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 6:23:33 PM)

gotta love some of the crap this is posted around these parts these days.

It must be a slow day in his world.




DaddysInkedSlut -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 6:24:36 PM)

OP,
I have another question. Do you think that being poly means that you simply get to fuck who you want, when you want?




Twoshoes -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 6:40:27 PM)

quote:


*waits with bated breath for the answers*


I don't think the OP is going to answer that, but I'll volunteer!

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
In your entire diatribe, you have given your opinions, stated calmly as if they were facts, without a single citation or reference.  That drives me nuts.  I've had to sit through a crapload of Six Sigma stuff in which all case histories are manufactured.  When there are no real life examples... I wonder why.


Maybe he has trouble coming up with the protocol and funding for a double-blind study involving bdsm slavery. [;)]

I agree that the lack of specific examples was indeed not very convincing with his "theoretic approach".

The other 50% of people that are emotionally-driven could still be convinced if he can emulate Ghandi or Martin L. King, jr.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
OP, I'm an engineer. I think like one.


I'm a watermelon technician! I think like one. Infact, I'm currently trying to come up with a foolproof, 10-step plan for operating on one and extracting its contents!

[sm=diethreaddie.gif]




DomImus -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 6:50:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527
quote:

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

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


Me, too - and it doesn't even pain me to admit it. And while I don't subscribe to every single nuance of his OP in a general sense he's right. I have been saying for a long time that most submission takes place on the terms of the submissive. Call that what you want - my euphemism is "conditional submission". I don't mean that a put down. It's just the reality of the situation the majority of the time.




Lockit -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 6:57:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: masterpdg

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.


LOL... is that so? LOL!

While you blend some truth in a slave dynamic that some will enjoy, you spout a lot of assumptions, un-researched factoids that mean little and I personally find delusional, and a whole lot of opinion.

I've taken great pleasure in teaching men like you a few lessons. lol But, that has to wait until I stop laughing and I'm still laughing. LOL... God, I love this place!




SpiritedRadiance -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 7:02:21 PM)

And thats why i Love the fact that I live in a country where slavery is illegal and anything against my will can come with Charges from the law.

Conditional or not, we all have limits, we choose partners based on those limits, whining doesnt change the fact we all have a breaking point.




DesFIP -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 7:03:57 PM)

The Man is monogamous. Now, it is true that if he were poly I wouldn't be compatible with him. However if I were poly, he wouldn't find me compatible.

The op seems to be saying that he wants a stable of women waiting on him. Assuming he's above the age of 17, that's not a good idea. Men's sexual peak is in the high school years. By the time a man is in his 50's, his refractory period may well be days and not hours. So if he has relations with four different women, that means two weeks will go by before he has the energy to go back to sub A. Really think it's appropriate to see her for two hours every two weeks, with her having nothing but loneliness the rest of the time?

Actually, one woman can easily recover and have relations with several men in the time the man is hoping to get ready for round two. If of course she has very low standards. A woman can always find a man to have sex with, which is far different from men she wants to have sex with.

DomImus, all relationships are conditional. You work for your boss as long as the pay and conditions are right. You see your parents as long as they are respectful of your right to choose your own life. You stay friends with people as long as they are friends back to you. And so on. Once we are adults, either both parties are satisfied in the relationship or it will die.




masterpdg -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 7:14:11 PM)

I am going to try to reply to some of the substantive comments and ignore the less well informed ones. Steven sis completely correct when he cites lack of empirical data. Data are not used in my original post as I have no pretension that my post is appearing on a peer-reviewed journal of human sexuality rather than collarme.
The theoretical part of my argument does not require empirical evidence by its very nature and is based upon my understanding of what slavery and ownership consist of.
As far as the more practical reasoning. I admitted fully that there were exceptions to my generalizations. Nevertheless, the anecdotal evidence they are based upon seems strong. Even in the vanilla world women daying men of a certain age often point out that many, ok I get it not all, of them have reached the certain age single for the reason not solely of bad luck.
The most interesting observation I had and the least commented on is that the expectation of monogamy by women leads to a lot of avoidable heartbreak. Indeed we (the culture) treat a straying man as somewhat worse than a murderer (see the constantly negative coverage of Tiger Woods, or Sandra Bullock's ex). I think monogamy is a much more dangerous concept to women since most men ignore the concept when it suits them.
As for femdom relationships, I cannot comment and find very few women who truly obtain transcendent pleasure from being dominant (I exclude all professional dommes as in a capitalist society, he who pays in in charge despite what things look like). Regarding homosexual relationships I expect the dynamic is similar and the dominant would not expect to be limited by someone claiming to desire slavery or submission.




DomImus -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 7:14:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP
DomImus, all relationships are conditional.


I won't argue with that, Des. I think you're absolutely right. The thing is, all of the examples you gave are relationships that by their very nature are based on condition and compromise. If you are going to toss domination and submission into that pot (and clearly you have) then we may as well come up with a new consensus term for it that is more appropriate and toss the whole D/s moniker. It's sorta like when kids dress up in their parents' clothes. They aren't adults. They're just pretending they are. D/s as it occurs in society most of the time bears a remarkable resemblance to that childhood pastime.

I am not on a crusade to clothe the Emperor.




LadyPact -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 7:15:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527
quote:

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

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


Me, too - and it doesn't even pain me to admit it. And while I don't subscribe to every single nuance of his OP in a general sense he's right. I have been saying for a long time that most submission takes place on the terms of the submissive. Call that what you want - my euphemism is "conditional submission". I don't mean that a put down. It's just the reality of the situation the majority of the time.


The problem with the premise is that it is based on instantaneous slavery.  If this is true, then there really is no Mastery.  There is no process of relinquishing control.  Trust being complete and automatic from the first moment.  There is no deepening of submission.  There is no growth in the dynamic.

That may work for some people and there may be those out there that expect this from the first moment.  I have never found that to work for Me.  In reality, I wouldn't want it.  I would much prefer to earn the faith, trust, and submission of an individual over the course of time.




DomImus -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 7:16:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance

And thats why i Love the fact that I live in a country where slavery is illegal and anything against my will can come with Charges from the law.

Conditional or not, we all have limits, we choose partners based on those limits, whining doesn't change the fact we all have a breaking point.



So if I don't agree with you I'm whining?

Very nice.




KatyLied -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 7:21:09 PM)

quote:

As for femdom relationships, I cannot comment and find very few women who truly obtain transcendent pleasure from being dominant


[sm=jerry.gif]




masterpdg -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 7:23:07 PM)

Perhaps some of my writing on limits will help be get more complaints...lol:

Why limits are silly and self defeating.I bring this topic up because there are numerous women who define themselves as submissive or slaves and then make a list of things they claim they will not do.Limits serve to offer no protection and at the same time undermine the meaning of this type of relationship. No matter how 'rational' your limits sound. and one young lady lists death and dismemberment among her hard limits, the very concept is nonsense.If you are going to be helpless at any point and alone, there is nothing you can do to keep you limits from being violated, period.If you are gagged, strictly bound and sensory deprived how could you stop your limits from being exceeded?If you trust your owner's morality and decency, why the hell would you try to undermine the erotic charge of such a relationship with limits.Ladies, when thinking about submission use your brain.Limits are no protection from anything, the only real protection you can have is choosing a man with a moral center.I know that is a lot harder than writing a contract, but it is the only true safety.Seriously, how could you give a the man the power to bind, you, beat you, burn you, gag you, and whatever and not trust his judgment? Moreover, once you mention a limit you begin a very nasty psychological process in the mind of many dominants in which the only way to prove your devotion is to blow past the limits (which in the case of death or dismemberment would really suck). There is no substitute (maybe unless you are just looking for some occasional public play) for finding a quality owner.I know it.s hard, but there is not another way.





jujubeeMB -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 7:23:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus
Call that what you want - my euphemism is "conditional submission". I don't mean that a put down. It's just the reality of the situation the majority of the time.


Well, I could easily call what you prefer "fantasy submission." Everyone has needs and conditions, even the supposed no-limits subs - they've just found Doms who fit what they're looking for to "submit unconditionally" to. You'll never find true unconditional surrender in this world, because we all have brains and survival instincts and we don't just do whatever the first guy to cross our path tells us to. So really, as long as we all have legal rights and cognizant thought, it's all conditional submission.




DomImus -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 7:23:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
The problem with the premise is that it is based on instantaneous slavery.  If this is true, then there really is no Mastery.  There is no process of relinquishing control.  Trust being complete and automatic from the first moment.  There is no deepening of submission.  There is no growth in the dynamic.

That may work for some people and there may be those out there that expect this from the first moment.  I have never found that to work for Me.  In reality, I wouldn't want it.  I would much prefer to earn the faith, trust, and submission of an individual over the course of time.



The words in bold are yours, not mine. I don't recall having used the "i" word. You make a valid point. I wouldn't expect complete and absolute relinquishing of control from jump street but eventually things will arrive at that point or we will have a problem. Let me ask you a question: Would you stay in a D/s relationship that doesn't ultimately grow into something that is done on your terms (what ever those terms may be)?

Edited to add: The part in italics and bold: I think that would be stated better as "submission on my terms".




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

Valid CSS!




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