RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants?

RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

[Poll]

The cardinal rule of all Dominants?

Submissive free to talk to whomever

60% (25)

Submissive needs permission to talk to other Dominants

9% (4)

Submissive can talk freely only if Dominant is present

0% (0)

Submissive is not allowed to talk to other Dominants

0% (0)

Submissive is not allowed to talk to other Dominants

0% (0)

It depends

29% (12)

Total Votes : 41

(last vote on : 12/28/2011 7:02:40 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

myotherself -> RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (3/18/2011 12:07:03 AM)
I don't have any restrictions with regard to who I talk with. Master knows my closest friend is a male Dominant, but has no problem with our chatting because he knows how important my friends are to me. We don't do high protocol, although he is of course at liberty to give me orders as and when he feels it's necessary. He trusts me - if he didn't, then we wouldn't have much of a relationship.

LadyNTrainer -> RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (3/18/2011 12:16:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig A friend told me she had been told by somebody in an email that there was one rule that all dominants, male or female have that they simply will not abide being broken: Owned subs are not allowed to talk other Dominants.. Say what? That would make life pretty socially awkward at a Munch if my partners had to ignore half the people we were eating dinner with. Puh-leeze. eye roll We're poly, but even if we weren't, if I couldn't trust them to have a normal conversation with another human being without instantly and uncontrollably getting naked and hopping in the sack, then I wouldn't be with them in the first place.

NocturnalStalker -> RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (3/18/2011 12:48:38 AM)
I hope to one day have a submissive that dislikes almost everything much like myself and plots to overthrow me daily. That cutthroat shit gets me going.

Selectivelight -> RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (3/18/2011 1:39:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NocturnalStalker I hope to one day have a submissive that dislikes almost everything much like myself and plots to overthrow me daily. That cutthroat shit gets me going. If you ever decide to write a book, I want an autographed copy.

sirsholly -> RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (3/18/2011 3:13:20 AM)
quote: Owned subs are not allowed to talk other Dominants. Jim is not dumb...shutting me up is about as difficult as nailing Jello to a tree.

DesFIP -> RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (3/18/2011 4:24:25 AM)
I'm not supposed to talk to other dominants one on one. This isn't because of lack of trust but because I have never been able to tell when a guy is coming on to me. So I would take it as pure friendship and then be upset when I'd eventually get an email that was sexual, or suggesting I not tell The Man and sneak off for the afternoon. If I was the sort to laugh at it, he wouldn't care. But because I get upset he found it easier to tell me just not to respond at all. The reason here is that I have Generalized Anxiety Disorder and he's very insistent on me not doing things that can cause an anxiety attack.

thishereboi -> RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (3/18/2011 5:14:37 AM)
I have only met a handful of people who micromanage to this point. If it works for them, that's great, it wouldn't work with me. It reminds me of a Dom from our area, who used to get mad because my Mistress never read his email to her in a "timely" manner. She told him that she didn't get to the computer much and if he had something important to send, he should sent it to me. He claimed that all emails should be sent to the dominant and that was the way everyone did it. She said if that was what he wanted fine, just don't bitch when I don't read your mail.

sunshinemiss -> RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (3/18/2011 5:21:13 AM)
Sunny Quote of the Day goes to LanceHughes [sm=cute.gif] for Cardinal rule? I call "bullshit".

tiggerspoohbear -> RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (3/18/2011 5:58:06 AM)
I voted with the "it depends". I can most definitely be trusted, that would never be an issue. But I also suffer from GAD and hearing from certain ex-Doms is a big no-no for me. It sends me into a panic and terrified feeling for a few days at the very least. No matter that I have told them not to contact me. And they're already blocked, so go figure! [>:] I hate when the conversation goes from "normal" to "sex" in 0 to 60. That's enough to set me off. I can take care of it, and the message is most certainly received that I'm not a happy camper. But it sets me off on a rant, even if I'm yammering at myself. I block and delete an report if necessary, but I'd rather avoid it completely.

hejira92 -> RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (3/18/2011 6:23:08 AM)
In high-protocol? No, I never speak to a D-type unless He gives the other D permission (I would never initiate the exchange in that setting, even if the D-type was a friend. That's why it's called HIGH protocol). At a munch? He expects to be greeted first, but conversation is then open. Online? No, I do not carry on conversations or exchange messages with male D's. Not because I might run off, or be seduced, or any such nonsense, but because too many assholes have pissed me off and/or hurt my feelings that He decided it wasn't worth it for either of us. He likes me emotionally stable and there's enough real life stuff for Him to deal with in our lives without manufactured drama. Among friends? Not an issue. Unless, I get too talkative (often [:)]) and He gives me the "look". But that's less about D's and more about letting Him get a word in edgewise .[;)]

0ldhen -> RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (3/18/2011 7:11:41 AM)
Arpig, you should have had one more option "I Call Bullshit!" There is no one rule for anything in wiitwd. Though for me personally if a dominant feels the need to control who I talk to, I figure that is one insecure D.

0ldhen -> RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (3/18/2011 7:14:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LanceHughes Cardinal rule? I call "bullshit". Damnit, I did not see this when I made my post. I agree with you.

LillyBoPeep -> RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (3/18/2011 7:37:39 AM)
i agree on the "bullshit" front when people start talking about absolutes, that's when they start making mistakes. =p

0ldhen -> RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (3/18/2011 7:45:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep when people start talking about absolutes, that's when they start making mistakes. =p Buttttt........I think you are ABSOLUTELY beautiful......

LillyBoPeep -> RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (3/18/2011 7:48:10 AM)
awww, well thank you, Oldhen ^.~

GreedyTop -> RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (3/18/2011 7:50:06 AM)
you IZ!!

LinnaeaBorealis -> RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (3/18/2011 8:07:31 AM)
I also call bullshit when anyone says there is one absolute way that everyone does something. I am in a micro-management style relationship & I like it just fine. And he hasn't restricted my contact with anyone. Why would he? But here's something I have figured out on my own: for the most part, male dominants tend to lie when they profess to want a platonic friendship with a female submissive. I'm thinking about online here. I've been contacted by several male dominants who said they only wanted to be friends with me & within a couple of emails or im's they are asking me about my kinks. My platonic friends don't really give a flying fuck about my kinks. So I restrict myself. Although there are times when it's cathartic to tell these fools off!!

FukinTroll -> RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (3/18/2011 8:16:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I'm going to fess up that I answered incorrectly. My vote should have went to it depends. High protocol or leather situation, you're darn right. At least from the level of introduction. High protocol dinner, same thing. Even in casual settings, you don't ask him if he can do something for you. Since his time is My time, you ask Me. The times it hasn't gone that way, I've looked the person straight in the eye and told them that the collar on his neck is not a fashion statement. We also happen to have a high protocol dynamic. That means that out of courtesy, if a Dominant wants to talk with him, they should be going through Me. Yes, yes, a lot of folks like to chest thump about that with the "well I don't have to recognize your protocols" thing. It's been an actual issue exactly three times in coming up on four years. I bolded the yummy part. On these boards the /s' talk up a storm, that is one of the things that make this place so awesome. I have seen /s' and D's get fired up enough to tell people to "get the fuck out!" and block them. We get to connect with people here that on any given day we wouldn't have a prayer to socialize, as tight as our little community is many of us are still oceans apart in RL. In RL if I have issues with someone I am not a bit skeerd to tell them to get the fuck out and never show your face around me again (the RL block button). That is where I am with the bolded part of your post, if they do not respect your protocol it simply comes down to it is your protocol and they can STFU or GTFO. Gonna give a shout out to PoohBear here, she was brave enough to be selfish enough to tell someone to GTFO that wasn't good for her or what she needed. YMMV SLURP~

sunshinemiss -> RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (3/18/2011 8:37:19 AM)
[sm=rofl.gif] quote: ORIGINAL: hejira92 Online? No, I do not carry on conversations or exchange messages with male D's. Not because I might run off, or be seduced, or any such nonsense...[;)][/color] [sm=rofl.gif] That right there... it gave me a giggle... Cuffkinks? He's like Chuck Norris - when he does a push up, he's not pushing himself up .... he's pushing the earth down. I love that man.

stellauk -> RE: The cardinal rule of all Dominants? (3/18/2011 9:48:15 AM)
I took the first option simply because I kind of assume that a D type and an s type are together out of choice rather than anything else. As for the cardinal rule? Some D's do follow them, but they're unlikely to be my D and if I ever end up being a D same thing. High protocol? That's no different to etiquette, which has less to do with rules and far more to do with conventions. I would actually suggest that the guiding principle of all D's, if there was one, would be person first, dynamic later.

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

Spam Policy

0.046875