RE: Not Poly, then no sub?

RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (Full Version)

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

Message

LostLenore -> RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (4/27/2006 5:20:24 AM)
It all comes back to those wise words from Hamlet, "To thine own self be true." I have a question for everyone though. I always took poly to mean having two or more partners who know each other and may or may not be sexually active together. Now what about having multiple partners who haven't met each other? My subs know they are part of a stable, but I don't expect them to participate in group scenes unless they request it. I don't think my brand of non-monogamy is the same thing as polyamory, but the literal translation "many loves," leaves room for confusion. Any thoughts?

angelthighhighs -> RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (4/27/2006 5:36:31 AM)
while i have no problem with people being in poly relationships. i do believe that some call themselves poly only because what they want in a piece of ass and no committments. to THOSE when another doesn't comply it seems like they're the ones that are feeling guilty and therefore must make the other person feel worse because in a sense you reminded them they're only poly so they can do as they want, to who they want and no committment. Please Note: i am NOT saying all those in poly relationships are like this......don't want anyone to misunderstand me[8\|]

ShiftedJewel -> RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (4/27/2006 6:09:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: foxnotinsox quote: I do not believe they are trying to make you feel guilty, i think the Doms are just being what they are, dominant. Hmmmm .... being dominant means that there is a submissive counterpart .. and unless I am mistaken, cuddleheart did not give them any indication that they were dominant to her. This is something that really bothers me about so-called dominants .. and that they believe that they have a right to dom-over anyone who identifies as a submissive, rather than a privilege that is granted. I do not believe that this guy is a dominant .. perhaps has dominating tendencies, but not a dominant. A dominant is only created when they have their submissive partner to make them so.. otherwise, he is just a guy ... [heheh a guy with a puffed-up chest and an ego to match]. If he already has a partner (since he is poly-oriented, I am ASSuming so), then he is dominant to that partner. Nobody else. I put into my profile a limit <evil grin> ... that I offer my submission first before any dominance is exerted. It has helped in cutting out responses from creeps like that .. because =) really! who is some stranger on the internet to tell me who I am and how to think .. without my consent. That is abuse, and deserves nothing more than a D&B [delete&block] Stick to your guns girl ... heheh or just the gun if you're a single shooter *So what you are saying is that unless they are involved in a D/s relationship (with a partner) that no one is either dominant or submissive?* I'm so far from believing that concept that I had to reply to it. Yes, you can claim either orientation and be single at the same time... So, does this mean that in order to be "pc" that we need to instead list ourselves as "having dominant tendencies" and are looking for those with "submissive tendencies"? Well, that isn't what I want, I want someone that has a lot more then sub "tendencies"... I want them to be submissive in their body, mind and soul. And beyond that, I'm not looking for someone that seeks a person that tends to be dominant... 'cuz I'm dominant, body, mind and soul. quote: Are they trying to make me feel guilty? *cuddleheart... yes, they are... and if that wasn't their intention and they really do believe that... then they have issues. Either way, your best bet is to walk away.*

CrappyDom -> RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (4/27/2006 6:36:39 AM)
Anyone who utters the word "true" in reference to themselves and or others is almost guaranteed to be an asshole or at best ignorant. The point of S&M is to explore yourself and find out what makes you tick. So, as long as you are a "true" human, there is no "true" path because people are all "truly" different. It makes about as much sense as saying true submissives are under 5'2" or have red hair, or live in Montana, or any other clearly idiotic statement.

thetammyjo -> RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (4/27/2006 6:40:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuddleheart50 I have had several Doms tell me over the last few weeks that if I don't want to live a poly lifestyle, then I'm not a true sub. I know that is not true. Are they trying to make me feel guilty? In my opinion, someone who goes out of his/her way to tell you that you wrong and that their interpretation is the only correct is a person who is very insecure about their own definitions and desires. They need to get others to agree with them so that they can feel more justified in their own definitions and beliefs. Or they are a big bully. Do you want either of those types of people in your life? If not, I'd try to ignore them. If they send you email, block them from doing so so you can ignore them more easily.

twicehappy -> RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (4/27/2006 6:45:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sirandlittle1 I didnt share well as a kid, i didnt share well as a teenager, i still dont share well as a woman. I'll be damned if ill give 100% of myself to a man, that is only giving me 50%. No ifs, no buts. No poly. I am not stating here poly is for everybody, it is not. This is however a comment on your statement. It is ok to be monogamous and not share well but you views on the feelings involved are quite incorrect. I am owned by a Dom/Domme couple. In a previous collar my Master at one time had 5 other females in the house, did he love me less because he had these others, hell no! Does my current Master love me less because he also loves his wife, absolutely not. Actually what i have is more love not less. You could also be speaking of having 100% of his attention, true we share his attention. Since we are almost always together generally we are receiving it at the same time, yet we both also receive a portion of his individual attention. But the best part, we also get attention from each other. Again we all have a greater quantity rather than a lesser. Do you truly believe that each individual is given a certain limited quantity of love to share? Or that by sharing this love it leaves them a lesser amount to share with others? Think about it, if you are a parent and you have a child he has 100% of your love, correct? Now you have a second child, does this mean each child now has only 50% of your love, now throw your partner in, so do they each only get 33% each of your love? We as human beings are blessed with an infinite capacity for love. Love is a strange substance, the more of it you give the more of it you have. I have both their loves they both have mine, by sharing the whole is increased exponentially The human heart is a limitless container, much like the never empty purse of fairy tales, the more you share from it the more it contains. As my signature line states-

MrDiscipline44 -> RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (4/27/2006 6:45:43 AM)
I agree with CD. Especially with the opening statement, though I would include people that use the statements "real", "fakes", "wannabees" and "players"

zebra -> RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (4/27/2006 7:02:16 AM)
I too have been told several times that I'm not a "true" this or that. All I can be is the true me, which is also all you can be (well, you can't be the true me -- lucky for you! -- but you get what I'm saying). What surprises me is that some "doms" go out of their way to write to me and criticize my wants and needs, and they do it when I've made no initial contact at all. I'm always polite, but part of me always wants to write back: "Did I miss the part where I asked your opinion??" zebra

Reasonable -> RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (4/27/2006 7:10:11 AM)
Fake sub= won't do what the wankers want.

LadyMorgynn -> RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (4/27/2006 7:19:07 AM)
That's it in a nutshell! quote: ORIGINAL: Reasonable Fake sub= won't do what the wankers want.

MrRodgers -> RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (4/27/2006 7:25:11 AM)
CrappyDom, I have a passionate love affair with the English language. (Iam in love but Iam lazy, so not necessarily an expert...yet). What you are doing is taking a single word out of context and that tells us nothing. So the single word 'true' by itself means nothing along with any noun that may follow. For example, I can be true blue. There is no argument. I can make a true statement and it simply describes the statement. So what is important in your example is not the 'true' sub, but the criteria following, which we know is not true. So the important words in the statement...the only 'true' master lives in my zip code...which we also know not to be true, is the geographical limits, not the word true.

darq -> RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (4/27/2006 7:39:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy quote: ORIGINAL: cuddleheart50 I have had several Doms tell me over the last few weeks that if I don't want to live a poly lifestyle, then I'm not a true sub. I know that is not true. Are they trying to make me feel guilty? I do not believe they are trying to make you feel guilty, i think the Doms are just being what they are, dominant. Some, not all Doms/Dommes feel if you are going to submit to their desires you should be willing to submit to this one to. What you need to realize is this does not make you less of a submissive. What this makes you is a submissive that is just not into poly. This also makes you not the submissive for those Doms/Dommes who are into poly. Think about it, that is no different than somebody telling you that if you are not into caning or enemas you are not submissive. OK, I see what you're saying ... But the thing is, thats assuming that she wants to submit to them. I'm a submissive and I'll be the first to admit that I have no interest in submitting to about 90% of the Doms I meet. Does that make them not Doms? No ... Does it make me not submissive? No ... It just means that when I am with them I don't feel any inclination to surrender my will to theirs. So if they were to tell me I wasn't a 'true submissive' because I wasn't interested in them it would make as much sense for me to turn around and say, well maybe you're not a 'true Dominant' for not stirring that desire within me. It just doesn't make any sense in the grand scheme of things. Different people have different needs and desires and thats the beauty of variety. cuddleheart, I've gotten that line before as well. I'm only poly in very selective situations ... I'm not bi either. I really had to struggle with both those things for the longest time because I thought if I didn't offer things like that no Dom would ever take me seriously. Frankly, I'd rather be single than be forced to compromise my values just to please another.

MrRodgers -> RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (4/27/2006 7:40:20 AM)
Cuddleheart50, the kinkosphere has become a vast digital landscape bringing in a variety of vermin. Too often they are parasites...sucking the joy and freedom from the passion we share in this lifestyle. Words for me must have meaning and if necessary and it often is, an agreed definition to that word. To be defined as a sub means only that at sometime you will submit or sincerely hope to, the rest is conversation.

MasterFireMaam -> RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (4/27/2006 7:41:53 AM)
Yes, they are trying to make you feel guilty, as well as inferior. Ignore them. Go with your heart. Fire

BrianSenior -> RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (4/27/2006 7:42:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: krys When someone tells you that you are not a "true sub" because you're not interested in poly, I suggest responding that a "True Dom" would so completely and instantly bend you to their will that a debate or discussion would not even be necessary. I like that, well put. ~BK~

MrRodgers -> RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (4/27/2006 7:53:16 AM)
Of course cuddleheart50, we could always use our sense of humor and look at the bright side. All these doms are so infatuated with you that they just have to go poly and have group sex with...you. They want you...to replicate and become twins or even tripplets. Hey, if we are going to fantasize, like my daddy told me, go all the way. If one of you is great...then 2 or 3 of you would be incredible, hey ? Of course, you could just as well reply and with the certainty of a monogamous woman...guys, I would have to think one of me is more than enough for you.

Arpig -> RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (4/27/2006 8:52:45 AM)
quote: That is abuse WTF????[sm=confused.gif][sm=confused.gif][sm=confused.gif] How in the Hell does some wanker telling you that he doesn't consider you a real submissive (or catholic/republican/dog lover/whatever) constitute abuse??? He has not caused you any harm, so where is the abuse? I am sorry, but this word is vastly overused (I was once accused of financial abuse...because I didn't make enough money...go figure), and this is a prime example of that over use....you don't like somebody, you scream "ABUSE!!!". It is you who is guilty of abuse, you are abusing the English language. Please don't cheapen the word by applying it to every objectionable habit, reserve it for those things that actually are abusive...Sheeeesh!![sm=ofcourse.gif]

rapture2778 -> RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (4/27/2006 10:42:32 AM)
diversity is what makes the world go round...no one is "more submissive" for living poly and no one is "less submissive" for being monogamous. Above all we are ALL human, we all have different dersires, kinks, and needs...the trick is finding another who shares similiar core views...for some poly can be a wonderful experience, for others it can be emotionally destructive. Never forget that you are human, and just because you are a submissive doesn't mean that you have to comprimise your emotional self...if it appears someone is telling you something that doesn't "sit" well with you on a deep emotional level, chances are they are not the match for you....best of luck to you in finding what you are looking for!

Reasonable -> RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (4/27/2006 11:01:48 AM)
Grins....And refusing to go along shoe shopping, while a sub tries on every pair in ten different stores is also abusive. There must be MONSTERS everywhere![:D]

twicehappy -> RE: Not Poly, then no sub? (4/27/2006 11:41:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: darq quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy quote: ORIGINAL: cuddleheart50 I have had several Doms tell me over the last few weeks that if I don't want to live a poly lifestyle, then I'm not a true sub. I know that is not true. Are they trying to make me feel guilty? I do not believe they are trying to make you feel guilty, i think the Doms are just being what they are, dominant. Some, not all Doms/Dommes feel if you are going to submit to their desires you should be willing to submit to this one to. What you need to realize is this does not make you less of a submissive. What this makes you is a submissive that is just not into poly. This also makes you not the submissive for those Doms/Dommes who are into poly. Think about it, that is no different than somebody telling you that if you are not into caning or enemas you are not submissive. OK, I see what you're saying ... But the thing is, thats assuming that she wants to submit to them. I'm a submissive and I'll be the first to admit that I have no interest in submitting to about 90% of the Doms I meet. Does that make them not Doms? No ... Does it make me not submissive? No ... It just means that when I am with them I don't feel any inclination to surrender my will to theirs. I am confused what are you trying to say about my post here? If you read it carefully you basically said exactly what i said. At what point did i make the assuption she wanted to submit to them?

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125