RE: Submissives -- really? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master



Message

Elisabella -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 7:01:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fredllfixit

I read with a little amusement the writings of some submissives, both here and elesewhere. The number of conditions, the demands and the number of times the word "must" is used about a potential master. To a genuine submissive, these words, specifications and the concepts behind them shouldn't really exist in the makeup of a submissive at all. The gen. sub. really wants to please and doesn't make conditions. He does as he's told and likes it that way. He even seeks out what a Master might want, and of course has learned what Master wants when Master has adopted him. He is a "dog" in the wider, generic sense of the word and it's exactly what he wants -- to fit in. Under the "boss-dog".
Masters don't escape citicism either. Just because you're the Master is no excuse for rudeness or bad manners. Servants can't answer back, but instead get their own back -- later, when Master least expects it. The Master has a duty to keep his slaves in good condition, simply because a Master is judged from his inferiors and their condition. It's a lifetime obligation.
You think this is old fashioned, even victorian? It most certainly is -- and what's wrong with that?  Nothing.




Ah I see your problem. You are confusing submissives, servants, and slaves.

protip: submissives have doms, slaves have masters.  if a 'master' is wondering why his 'submissive' isn't the perfect 'slave' he is doing it wrong.



smilezz -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 7:03:38 AM)

Ahhhh.....here we go with that whole fantasy thing again.


[sm=sigh.gif]



DMFParadox -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 7:04:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: DMFParadox

I look at it from the perspective of online marketing, I guess. Catch the part of the bell curve that rings, not the end bits, you know? and sort out the white-starchy-bad-for-you stuff from the inedible grassy stuff at that point. Not before you've even separated the wheat from the ground.



I used to do resume writing, and the best resumes were those that were targeted, stated exactly what the applicant wanted and was good for. The rest got lost in a dull drone.  I assume that profiles are similar - know what you want and state it, and don't mess with the incompatibles.



I'm glad you raised this example.

Imagine if the resume consisted primarily of things the employee did not want in their employer. Or thinly-veiled references to it by over-specifying what they did want.

That's the crap I'm talking about here. And it gets defended far too strenuously... because that shit don't work, maestro.



GreedyTop -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 7:05:32 AM)

quote:

Masters don't escape citicism either. Just because you're the Master is no excuse for rudeness or bad manners. Servants can't answer back, but instead get their own back -- later, when Master least expects it. The Master has a duty to keep his slaves in good condition, simply because a Master is judged from his inferiors and their condition. It's a lifetime obligation.


In re: this drivel..

Cant answer back?? WTF? do you not think that subs/slaves have their own minds? thoughts? feelings?  To disregard those things is to be rude and crude, IMO./  I do realize that some folks have dynamics that work like that, but to presume that this applies across the board stinks of newbie/porn wanker to me.

Personally, I would not respect any partner that would not ALLOW me to speak my mind, regardless if it was complimentary or not.
and personally, I would not wait.. "master" wouldnt have to watch his back, because he'd be too busy clutching his front..



poise -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 7:08:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fredllfixit

I read with a little amusement the writings of some submissives, both here and elesewhere. The number of conditions, the demands and the number of times the word "must" is used about a potential master. To a genuine submissive, these words, specifications and the concepts behind them shouldn't really exist in the makeup of a submissive at all. The gen. sub. really wants to please and doesn't make conditions. He does as he's told and likes it that way. He even seeks out what a Master might want, and of course has learned what Master wants when Master has adopted him. He is a "dog" in the wider, generic sense of the word and it's exactly what he wants -- to fit in. Under the "boss-dog".


Coincidentally, just two threads down from this one in Turn Off's you say "Finally, the prospective partner
who is only concerned with what he/she wants, and not one iota of concern for what you want.
This is a relationship killer before it even starts."
Looks like you have those dogs chasing their own tail trying to figure what you really mean.
Woof.




ResidentSadist -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 8:19:28 AM)

Ahh, the illusive and fleeting “true submissive”.

There are no real submissives . . . only the subjugated.
There are no real slaves . . . only the subordinate.

. . . except at my house.



CaringandReal -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 9:28:02 AM)

I agree with what a few people have said here: that you are conflating an owned slave with a partnered submissive with an unowned slave/submissive. That's three very different beasts, and they ain't all dawgs. So the conflation is confusing as hell and drawing some negative feedback.

I read something recently on this that I agree with: it carries your logic to its absurd extreme. If an unowned slave/unpartnered sub were to to be the way you describe (which is appropriate, in some relationships, for an owned slave) then she or he would accept the first person to write and want a relationship with her. Since "must" shouldn't occur in his nature, he should be absolutely open and take the first person who wants him, whatever they may be, including a Dolcett enthusisast who wants to have him for supper. Well what if the first person who wants him is another submissive who wants him to dom her or switch with her? Must can't exist for an unowned slave, so he needs to close down his profile, shack up with this other person however inappropriate they are for him, and serve them in any way they desire, even if his needs to belong to a master or mistress were totally frustrated. Now, if this were a submissive that you particularly desired, wouldn't it piss you off that they ran off with another sub because their nature is to serve and god forbid they have any "musts" even when unowned?

Wouldn't it continue to piss you off if every time a submissive posted a collarme profile They were poof! Taken by the first person to write them? If unowned subs were like your supposed ideal, you'd have to hound the boards constantly waiting for newcomers to appear, and then get your email in first, nanoseconds before all the other emails came in. And hope against hope that if you got there first they were any good, besides having no musts that is.

Even for an owned slave, their only true requirement/responsibility is that they do whatever their master or mistress orders, not what some stranger on a message board (namely, you) says they should be like. If their master or mistress orders them to have "musts" then, if they are a good slave, they will have those dreaded "musts." As you may be seeing, generalizing this broadly is usually not a good idea when it comes to highly complex systems such as human beings.

I also don't see what you are describing as the least bit Victorian, and I am strong ethusiast for that period and its people.



crazyml -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 9:29:41 AM)

I'm afraind you're not about to dictate to me, or any of those pesky picky sub-types out there what a "genuine sub" is.

But thanks for giving me a good chuckle, I read your profile with more than a little amusement, as it happens. I think it's really great that a man in his late fifties takes the trouble to use language that is down with the kidz.

Good for you!





hisbadkitty -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 10:58:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaringandReal

Even for an owned slave, their only true requirement/responsibility is that they do whatever their master or mistress orders, not what some stranger on a message board (namely, you) says they should be like. If their master or mistress orders them to have "musts" then, if they are a good slave, they will have those dreaded "musts." As you may be seeing, generalizing this broadly is usually not a good idea when it comes to highly complex systems such as human beings.


So very well said.



allnewtome -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 11:16:05 AM)

Good luck with your search. It's going to be a looooooooooooooooooooong one [:D]



Viridana -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 11:39:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fredllfixit
..........
You think this is old fashioned, even victorian? It most certainly is -- and what's wrong with that?  Nothing.


Do you think other people agree with your way of thinking and your expectations of behaviour?  Many, if not most, certainly don't -- and what's wrong with that? Nothing.



sexyred1 -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 12:23:57 PM)

Awwww....

There has really been an amusing amount of drivel posted by "Doms" lately. Either they are whining about not getting replies, or they are horrified that submissives actually possess needs, desires and limits, they think all profiles suck or they lament that there are no real subs, only scammers.

It must be a bad month at the Dom factory because really...a most unattractive bunch has landed on the shores of Collarme recently. All big mouth, bluster, bitterness and delusion and so little substance, finesse, patience and brains.




sweetsub1957 -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 5:20:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fredllfixit

I read with a little amusement the writings of some submissives, both here and elesewhere.
As I have been equally amused by the rantings of self-important people who think their way is the only way.
The number of conditions, the demands and the number of times the word "must" is used about a potential master.
Subs have Doms, slaves have Masters. That must be where You are confused. You obviously don't know the difference between the two.
To a genuine submissive,
Aaaah, the weal and twue submissive. What the hell is that? Genuine to WHO?
these words, specifications and the concepts behind them shouldn't really exist in the makeup of a submissive at all.
Why not? Aren't submissives entitled to have a decent relationship? I've got news for You Mister. Until said sub is IN a dynamic with Someone, she has every right to choose what it is she wants in a Dominant. I for one would NEVER be a submissive to just any yokel out there. I'm more choosy than that. And Daddy is glad.....that I chose Him as being better than any old Dominant for me. Who wants a sub that will submit to just Anyone? That certainly wouldn't make a Dominant feel special....would it?
The gen. sub. really wants to please and doesn't make conditions. He does as he's told and likes it that way.
Once s/he is IN the relationship, s/he does know what the conditions are and accepts them, as they should have been brought up and agreed to BEFORE the relationship/dynamic started.
He even seeks out what a Master might want, and of course has learned what Master wants when Master has adopted him. He is a "dog" in the wider, generic sense of the word and it's exactly what he wants -- to fit in. Under the "boss-dog".
Excuse me? A DOG? Now this, in my opinion, is horseshit.
Masters don't escape citicism either. Just because you're the Master is no excuse for rudeness or bad manners.
You're right there.
Servants can't answer back, but instead get their own back -- later, when Master least expects it. The Master has a duty to keep his slaves in good condition, simply because a Master is judged from his inferiors and their condition. It's a lifetime obligation.
Again, are You talking about SUBMISSIVES or SLAVES or SERVANTS?? They are all different creatures, specifically.
You think this is old fashioned, even victorian? It most certainly is -- and what's wrong with that?  Nothing.
No, I don't think this is Victorian. I think it's just B.S. You obviously have subs, slaves, and servants confused with each other. Which one are You really talking about here??

Bottom line.....if You don't like a particular profile, pass it by. There are plenty of others to go around.

~sweetsub~



littlewonder -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 5:32:50 PM)

before I was in a relationship I had tons of "musts" and made sure those who wanted to meet me were well aware of them before ever getting to the coffeeshop. I am not a "genuine submissive" until I am in a relationship with "a genuine Dom" who I can call my Master.

Now that I'm in a relationship with Him those musts are not even a thought because he met all those 'musts' before we even met.

It's called compatibility dude.




lizi -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 5:58:03 PM)

I love it when this notion goes around that people do something totally for the fulfillment of others. I suppose it happens once in awhile but when it comes down to it people are human beings, they do things because there is a payoff somewhere whatever it might be. The long lists that people post in their profiles are attempts to find a match. If there isn't a payoff then that particular human being isn't going to stick with you for long. Especially with no emotional attachment or other type of inducement. And even that doesn't last forever...read the threads about people yearning for emotional fulfillment and deciding to move on from their current situation because it isn't happening for them.

I don't care what your orientation is, people do things in order to get something out of it. It's what makes the world go round. In fact if someone isn't getting something out of a situation I'd distrust it mightily. There's a payoff happening somewhere...you can bet on it. There are very few situations in that someone will willingly do something that they don't want to do- parenthood comes to mind or other family relationships. I can't think of anything else...maybe a job that you need to be at for the paycheck. If there is a potential relationship in the works then both people need to be satisfied with what is meaningful to them in order to continue with it or it self-destructs.

When I was looking I encountered many Doms out there that felt as though a sub/slave having needs of their own was the worst thing they'd ever heard of. Those Doms are still single, I hear from them once in a while when they drop me a line to ask if I'm still seeing 'that guy'. They seem disgruntled when I say yes. If they'd think about opening up their mind to the fact that a relationship requires two satisfied customers they might have better luck finding one.



DesFIP -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 6:07:01 PM)

I had this discussion with The Man the other day, about real servants in a private home. I blame this drivel on the fact that most people today don't employ household staff. Those of us who grew up with them are much nicer to them than those who have just gotten the money to hire someone and assume they must treat them like dirt. Let me tell you, they'll stay just until they get a better job and leave without notice. As they should.

If I am looking for a private chef, I'm not going to take the first applicant who says her special talents lie in being a nanny. Nor is she going to take my job because it wouldn't match her needs. Same with those of us who do wiitwd.



OsideGirl -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 6:08:51 PM)

I've always thought it was entertaining that some guys think that being picky means that you're not submissive.



catize -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 6:42:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

I've always thought it was entertaining that some guys think that being picky means that you're not submissive.

That's G-E-N-U-WHINE submissive! [:D]



BbcSlutKc -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 10:57:11 PM)

u confuse a sub with a slave. they r very different



WolfyMontgomery -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/9/2010 12:25:11 AM)

Fast Reply =)

I just gotta say this.... YEAH, REALLY!!!

You're confusing all the different terms of service together. sub=/=slave=/=servant. But in my opinion, you're disrespecting all three of those terms anyway just in the way you're thinking of them.

Even slaves have "musts" and "needs". For example, I have a deep seated fear of needles. I wouldn't have a Master who liked needle play, because of that reason.
So if I was single and looking, I would have that the Master I would want "must" not like needle play, because when I do throw away my limits and qualms, it's because I know that the things I don't like, they don't like either and don't have to worry about things that I have major issues with ever coming up. If I was looking, and a Dom or Master type person came up to me and listed all the things I have serious qualms about as things they love doing, I would know that they weren't compatible with me - so why make them waste their time when I could just write that in my profile so that they know beforehand that it's not what I need to have a healthy happy mind?

Besides, Master requires me to pay very close to my limits, because we're both still learning about our likes and dislikes in many ways. He doesn't want to damage his property after all, if we came across something that would be psychologically damaging to me. Fortunately though about 99% of our likes and dislikes match, so it works for us



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

Valid CSS!




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