Submissives -- really? (Full Version)

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



Message

fredllfixit -> Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 4:57:11 AM)

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.




BonesFromAsh -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 5:06:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fredllfixit

To a genuine submissive, these words, specifications and the concepts behind them shouldn't really exist in the makeup of a submissive at all.



According to whom?



tazzygirl -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 5:11:33 AM)

"a genuine submissive".... hate to break the news to you, but a submissive is entitled to all those things you mentioned. what you describe is a slave who has been mastered.

There is a difference. Many miss that difference, sadly.



VaguelyCurious -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 5:12:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fredllfixit

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.

Fail.

I want the submissive people I interact with to be with me because I'm perfect for them and they are perfect for me, not out of some generic 'submissiveness' to anybody and everybody.

Nobody should settle for less than they want. If I'm attracted to someone and they are attracted to me, does it matter how many boxes there are on their internal checklist? If I happen to tick them all then that's the only important thing.



thishereboi -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 5:13:12 AM)

quote:

I read with a little amusement the writings of some submissives, both here and elesewhere.


Yea, I laugh my ass off at some of the crap the doms on here come up with also.  Especially when they start going on about "true" or "genuine" submissives. People can be so funny sometimes.



poise -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 5:28:24 AM)

Cool story, bro!



LadyPact -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 5:42:26 AM)

So, in one breath you complain about folks who have "musts" in regard to what they are searching for and in the next you say that it's a Master's duty to keep his slaves in good condition.  Somehow, that seems more hypocritical than Victorian.



AquaticSub -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 5:45:38 AM)

~Fast Reply~

Of course, the real irony here is that a Victorian servant served for a reason. Money, lodging, etc. They didn't do it for free and they didn't do it for less than they were worth if they could avoid it at all. So they had "musts", the thing that the OP is complaining about.



antinomy -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 5:53:53 AM)

"...and of course has learned what Master wants when Master has adopted him. "

You almost got it...really. Once this happens, a power exchange exists. UNTIL it exists, and until it's been defined by the people involved in it, the rest of what you said is moot. A submissive has full authority over what they do, what they want, and what they are seeking in a partner. If you don't like what a submissive "must have" according to their profile, you and he are not compatible. Does not make him any less submissive, and while you may find such things amusing, it tends to say a bit more about you than about the subs whose profiles you are looking at.



anniezz338 -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 5:54:35 AM)

I agree with the others about there not being any conditions expected by the sub so I won't go there.

As far as the boundaries and must haves and must not haves in profiles, well, I feel they are just looking for someone close to their same level and that is their way of conveying it. If I read one like that and it just keeps on and on on those same lines, I just move on. I like a little flexibility to a point.



GreedyTop -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 5:59:00 AM)

 I can be submissive.. I can be a TWUE submissive.. to someone who inspires me to be such.  Anyone else? you get the brassy, smartass side of me. The side of me that will mock, laugh and walk away.



BonesFromAsh -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 6:03:10 AM)


quote:

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



Have you read anything from Mrs. Beeton's Book of Household Management concerning domestic servants... http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/beeton/isabella/household/index.html

Taken from Chapter 41 titled "Domestic Servants";

quote:


The sensible master and the kind mistress know, that if servants depend on them for their means of living, in their turn they are dependent on their servants for very many of the comforts of life; and that, with a proper amount of care in choosing servants, and treating them like reasonable beings, and making slight excuses for the shortcomings of human nature, they will, save in some exceptional case, be tolerably well served, and, in most instances, surround themselves with attached domestics.


Yes, this is in reference to servants during Victorian times, but as AquaticSub pointed out, it was a job. Ironically, even at that time, if you read the opening paragraphs of the chapter, you see there were those of "society" who like to complain about the death of 'genuine' servants. Expectations are a funny thing,on both sides, no?



DarkSteven -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 6:09:40 AM)

I have come to accept that there are numerous people in this world whose views do not agree with mine.  If it floats their boat, I don't criticize them for being different.

Simply misdirected.  [:D]



DMFParadox -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 6:28:44 AM)

I tend to agree with the OP on the grounds that such profiles are less effective. Not that it's bad to state your needs, but it's just bad profile writing. Exclusive & non-inclusive writing tends to exclude all but the dudes who don't give a shit anyway, you feel me?

But hey, whatever. There's enough one-way traffic going on here that even a smelly outhouse gets people shitting in it. So who cares if they do a less than optimal job with keeping their profiles attractive? The girls writing these excreta certainly don't.



GreedyTop -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 6:35:43 AM)

If I know what works for me, as a submissive... WHY in gods name would I pretend otherwise?A list of wants / needs describes what WORKS. 



LadyPact -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 6:39:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DMFParadox

I tend to agree with the OP on the grounds that such profiles are less effective. Not that it's bad to state your needs, but it's just bad profile writing. Exclusive & non-inclusive writing tends to exclude all but the dudes who don't give a shit anyway, you feel me?

But hey, whatever. There's enough one-way traffic going on here that even a smelly outhouse gets people shitting in it. So who cares if they do a less than optimal job with keeping their profiles attractive? The girls writing these excreta certainly don't.


I don't know if I particularly agree.  Just personal opinion, of course, but if a person is using a profile to outline what they are looking for and give some kind of impression for what would make them compatible (or incompatible, as the case may be) with others.  We have to remember that there is somewhat of a scale.  Not everyone is into this for the same type of dynamic.



hlen5 -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 6:43:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DMFParadox

I tend to agree with the OP on the grounds that such profiles are less effective. Not that it's bad to state your needs, but it's just bad profile writing. Exclusive & non-inclusive writing tends to exclude all but the dudes who don't give a shit anyway, you feel me?

But hey, whatever. There's enough one-way traffic going on here that even a smelly outhouse gets people shitting in it. So who cares if they do a less than optimal job with keeping their profiles attractive? The girls writing these excreta certainly don't.



Bad profile-writing subs = shitty outhouses?



DMFParadox -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 6:51:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: DMFParadox

I tend to agree with the OP on the grounds that such profiles are less effective. Not that it's bad to state your needs, but it's just bad profile writing. Exclusive & non-inclusive writing tends to exclude all but the dudes who don't give a shit anyway, you feel me?

But hey, whatever. There's enough one-way traffic going on here that even a smelly outhouse gets people shitting in it. So who cares if they do a less than optimal job with keeping their profiles attractive? The girls writing these excreta certainly don't.


I don't know if I particularly agree.  Just personal opinion, of course, but if a person is using a profile to outline what they are looking for and give some kind of impression for what would make them compatible (or incompatible, as the case may be) with others.  We have to remember that there is somewhat of a scale.  Not everyone is into this for the same type of dynamic.



Yeah, true enough. Everytime I see a profile that bugs me, I have to remember "somebody out there is probably buying what they're selling..."

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.

It bothers me more than it should, because it seems like such a wasted opportunity. I tend to look at online dating as a zero-sum game for 80% of the men that come to it (actually, the number's around 1-in-9--there's a statistic for that lying around somewhere in $200-per-issue psychology peer-review journals I haven't bothered buying) but the women just seem to shoot themselves by vibing off the wrong impressions at the wrong times in the wrong ways. Makes me want to go "But dammit, just do it this way..."

But then, for many of those women it's the guys that stand out by navigating the firestorm crapola that are desirable, so... meh. Frankly, I still think most of these ladies are just being self-defeating, not effectively filtering.

Edit: due to death by pronoun in that last paragraph



stef -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 6:58:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fredllfixit

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.
...
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.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

~stef



DarkSteven -> RE: Submissives -- really? (11/8/2010 7:00:43 AM)

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.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.100586E-02