RE: Masters, do you like it... (Full Version)

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



Message


crazyml -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/23/2010 5:54:13 AM)

Help me out here.... where did Focus say that "slave" was a gender specific term?

He did say..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
But you are aware all posts are personal opinions posted from individual perspective?


So, for example, when I talk about "slave", I use "she" and "her". Because I assume that people, knowing - as well as you clearly do - that "slave" is non-gender specific, will understand that I could just as well be talking about "he" and "him". I could, I suppose slavishly write "He/She" and "Him/Her", or I could go all new age and use one of those hella-awesome gender neutral pronouns - "Ze" and "Hir".

Or I could just work on the basis that most people would recognise that I'm talking from my perspective, and that a few may ask for clarification and only a very few people, after having received said clarification would come back for more.

duh.

Must add - Not that Focus needs any back-up, this one just caught me in a snippy mood.




masterlink65 -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/23/2010 6:20:23 AM)

hmmm, last i knew, slaves were considered property. 




crazyml -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/23/2010 6:35:20 AM)

Oh! Was that you saying "Oh yeah, my bad - focus didn't say that slaves could only be women"?

Never mind.

As for "last I knew, slaves were considered property"... hmm yeah. I could ask you "in which countries?" or "in which century?" but you know, I reckon that nonsense has had its outing on plenty of threads already.

Just a thought - Anyone can call themselves master, claim ownership of slaves. But it takes a real master, a real man, to say "Sorry man, my bad" when he's wrong.




Focus50 -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/23/2010 12:03:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: masterlink65

hmmm, last i knew, slaves were considered property. 


At the risk of getting another gold edged email.... lol

My slave is considered personal property. She's also female; works a job, owns her own car, has a life outside of me - she's a genuine multi-tasker.

Seriously, when someone, anyone, talks of their female slave you can't do what everyone else does and mentally translate what they're saying into your own gay master/slave perspective to appreciate and understand? You hafta have it all spelt out for you?

Me, I don't get male subs/slaves at all...! But I can undertand that others do relate and thus I can get their meaning on any particular topic without getting all anal about the semantics of it all. <sheesh>

Focus.




leadership527 -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/23/2010 12:16:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
As for "last I knew, slaves were considered property"... hmm yeah. I could ask you "in which countries?" or "in which century?" but you know, I reckon that nonsense has had its outing on plenty of threads already.
For the record, I don't consider this statement "nonsense" and I'm pretty sure you don't consider me a non-sensical poster Crazy. In fact, I'd say that the ownership/property angles are WAY more important to me (at that primal rather than pragmatic level) than control and obedience. It is my control over Carol which enables me to paint the picture of our marriage on the canvas of our lives. It is owning Carol that makes my little lizard-brain get all flustered.

We could debate indefinitely about what, exactly, is "ownership" in the non-BDSM sense. Suffice it to say that it's not quite as straight-forward as "I went to a store and bought it" -- as a fair number of people being sued by the RIAA right now can attest to.




crazyml -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/23/2010 12:43:42 PM)

Hey Jeff,

You're right. It was a stupid thing to say, prompted by extreme irritation, and I'm sorry I wrote it that way.

What I should have said was it's nonsense to simply say "slaves are property" because many people have very many competing definitions, all of which can be equally valid in the context of different relationships.

And you can be sure that I don't consider you a non-sensical poster - you're certainly more sensical in your posts that I am.







Arturas -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/23/2010 4:05:34 PM)

What was the question?
(sorry, I hit enter too quick)...

1) Do you like slaves touching you without permission?
2) Slaves are female only unless they are not?
3) Slaves are property and that is the real answer?
4) Oxford writers are long winded?
5) large green type gathers no moss?




crazyml -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/23/2010 4:15:34 PM)

I think you forgot:

6) Who is and isn't a marvelous woman

But now we're both even more off topic, don't you think?




Arturas -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/24/2010 12:36:47 AM)

I m of course ;)

smiles
far from it
Master's star




Arturas -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/24/2010 8:28:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

I think you forgot:

6) Who is and isn't a marvelous woman

But now we're both even more off topic, don't you think?


You are so right. I did miss that one.
Did she vote for herself? That seems so "gorean", I think.




Arturas -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/24/2010 8:51:42 AM)

haha... i am SOOOO fabulous! LOL
Love,
Master's
star




Arturas -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/24/2010 8:53:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Oh! Was that you saying "Oh yeah, my bad - focus didn't say that slaves could only be women"?

Never mind.

As for "last I knew, slaves were considered property"... hmm yeah. I could ask you "in which countries?" or "in which century?" but you know, I reckon that nonsense has had its outing on plenty of threads already.

Just a thought - Anyone can call themselves master, claim ownership of slaves. But it takes a real master, a real man, to say "Sorry man, my bad" when he's wrong.

SO true, excellent and thank You!!




masterlink65 -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/24/2010 3:54:21 PM)

I have nothing to apologize for, I did nothing wrong, and said nothing wrong. Slave is not a gender specific term is all, and that is a fact. I do not need it spelled out. Ownership to me, means exactly that.

focus: if she is your property, then doesnt her car really belong to you? Or is ownership more of a collar of convenience for you? How much are you in control when she is ragging?

For me this is not a role play in the bedroom. I control every aspect of my slave, be it a male or female. This is the way life is lived here, this isnt something we do to be cute in our leathers.

How come so many get bent when a slave is referred to as "it"?




masterlink65 -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/24/2010 3:58:22 PM)

where do you people get these gay/straight figures from? collarme is not the 'end all' of kink sites. some of you people need to get out more! 




masterlink65 -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/24/2010 4:04:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50


quote:

ORIGINAL: masterlink65

focus,,,
slave is NOT a gender specific term.


Of course it *is*! It's very relevant to the individual posting their opinion.

Male slaves have exactly ZERO relevance to my D/s life and relationships etc, and I'd imagine it's much the same for any other hetero Master. So exactly why do I/we need to learn and accept that which has no relevance in our lives?

Focus.



you never heard of mastering outside of your sexual orientation? what about when slavery was legal in the USA? did slave owners say " i aint no faggot! i only want female slaves? whether it has relevance or not in your lifestyle, or role play, whatever the case may be, does not change the fact "slave" is NOT a gender specific term. Look it up once.




Focus50 -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/24/2010 6:25:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: masterlink65

focus: if she is your property, then doesnt her car really belong to you? Or is ownership more of a collar of convenience for you? How much are you in control when she is ragging?

For me this is not a role play in the bedroom. I control every aspect of my slave, be it a male or female. This is the way life is lived here, this isnt something we do to be cute in our leathers.


I own her; her physical self - in and out of the bedroom.... Her own material possessions are not my concern beyond her treating and respecting them as she would my own. I do not have "collars of convenience", I don't just "dom in the bedroom" and I don't do roleplay at all...!

In other words, I do not believe in a world that is either black or white, as you apparently do - life situations come in all shades of grey. And where I suspect we differ most is that my slave is also the one I *love* (and trust and all that goes with that territory) so I have no need to micromanage; to control every aspect of her life etc.... She serves me because she wants to and needs to rather than because she has to or been conditioned to - and that, my friend, is REAL power!

Hell, I don't even own "leathers" - so I guess that's also a "no" on stereotyped/cliche'd lifestyle uniforms, too.

If this makes me weak or "less" to you and your rigid "one true way" ideology then I suggest you find someone who actually cares and tell them.

Focus.




Focus50 -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/24/2010 6:50:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: masterlink65

you never heard of mastering outside of your sexual orientation?


Heard of it - yes. Indulge personally - no.


quote:

what about when slavery was legal in the USA? did slave owners say " i aint no faggot! i only want female slaves?


Let's see.... I'm not American, I wasn't around in Abe's day and history says those slaves weren't there by mutual consent, m or f. It's almost as though the real motivation was economic rather than sexual - rendering "faggot" mute....


quote:

whether it has relevance or not in your lifestyle, or role play, whatever the case may be, does not change the fact "slave" is NOT a gender specific term. Look it up once.


And still I don't care about the literal sense of "slave". In *MY* day to day world not only is 'slave' 100% female, she is technically the only slave on the entire planet for her relevance to me and what I post as general advice or opinion on the Forums. And that is the perspective from which I share my knowledge and experience at CM.

Focus.




CaringandReal -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/24/2010 6:53:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DMFParadox

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaringandReal
I think you're describing a submissive woman who objectifies herself. To some degree (which varies with the woman), she sees herself more as a object for someone else's use and pleasure than as an acting participant with her own needs or desires.


...kind of... yes and no. I'm struggling to explain this, so bear with me.

There's no sense of not being an active participant with a girl like this. Her participation is in being present, attentive, and willing.

It's passive...ish. Partly because she's got the charisma to draw attention no matter what she does, so it's like she actively selects for the men who are dynamic, fearless, and have a sense of internal power, by being receptive to it and trying not to muddy the water by moving around too much.

When the 'prey' you're hunting moves much faster than you do, you don't try to catch up. You watch their movement and position yourself to be 'caught' by them. Consider this perspective, then consider yourself as a woman with this perspective, and you'll get part of the idea I've got in my mind of this phenomena.

Extend it by considering that you, as this hunter of fast prey, are identifying your prey by how fast they move. If they're unhealthy, they are sluggish and hesitant, and they'll make you sick if you catch them. If they're fast, they'll get to you first, as long as you don't move. If you reach out then your ability to determine healthy from sluggish becomes blurred and muddy.

A hunting analogy is poor, because it doesn't factor in how this dynamic works when you have to choose and re-evaluate the same partner over a length of time...

Dancing might work for that. Some women don't mind taking the lead. Some women prefer it. Some are dancers so good that they can make anyone else good; and because of this, to find a partner that challenges them, lifts them up and reminds them of why they love dancing, they must be passive, and allow that partner to show themselves. They then give that partner the lead and never try to take it back, just to see how long they can just dance in bliss, without worrying about what step to take next.



I think I see what you're saying. The hunting analogy was hard for me to understand, but the dancing one makes good sense. I understand that this is a thread about physical touch and you were talking about styles of in-person touch in these messages. But how do you see this principle working online, or does it even work online?

I prefer passivity, following someone's lead, it's what I feel most comfortable with in a relationship and within a relationship it works fine, but if I am passive online the "people I don't know" (a.k.a. prey? ugh, hate thinking of them that way!) who come to my profile are almost always "unhealthy" or unsuited for me. They were the sort that I could tell would stomp all over my feet if I danced with them. I think two were not. Out of thousands of eager yammering men claiming I just "had" to talk to them, I was "perfect" for them, we had all these interests in common, yadda yadda. Two. :/

Maybe the time for passivity comes only after a connection has been established.




masterlink65 -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/25/2010 7:14:00 AM)

quote:


I own her; her physical self - in and out of the bedroom....  I don't do roleplay at all...!
my slave is also the one I *love*

Focus.




Your profile says you are single? No dependents?

I do not look at the world in black and white. I do, however know what the meaning of some words are. I know what slave means, and i know what single means.

What master means to me, is you either own a slave that wears your collar 24/7, in some shape or form, OR you have received you (Muir) cap, or cover from your community.






VideoAdminTheta -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/25/2010 9:53:41 AM)

The topic of slave gender and what they are called, referred to or how they are spoken about, might make a wonderful topic for another thread. As for this thread, it is going a bit further in off topic than it needs to.

Thank you




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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