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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

quote:

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

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??

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

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