quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

1.  You have to desire this type of dynamic -- i.e., it ain't nothin' you can fake.

i disagree. i think the desire for the dynamic is one of the root causes behind the problems many encounter when attempting to live in this fashion. It isn't the dynamic that should be paramount, but a want for him that exceeds hers to the degree where doing what he says is desired.

I disagree... I've found, more often than not, "one of the root causes behind the problems many encounter when attempting to live in this fastion", is their "fantasy" of it all, versus the "reality" -- those who "desire" to be owned by another (as property... no matter the point said "desire" surfaces), are not doing so from a place of kink/sex games (i.e., as their primary motivation), but because they "desire" to be "owned" and to "belong" to one that's earned this position of authority, and proven themselves capable.
 
Secondly, to the point of an s-type's "want for him that exceeds hers to the degree where doing what he says is desired", those who self-identify as either "sub" or "slave" both share this quality -- so it is absolutely not the mitigating factor.  Thus, you may call it the "dynamic", a mind-set, or whatever syntax of your choosing, but one has to "desire" (again, at some point) being another's owned property and accept all that this entails to succeed under the guise of a M/s TPE dynamic/relationship.  It doesn't work otherwise, as many have found who are simply not willing/ready to relinquish such control to another.


That's a huge difference. Wanting to relinquish control is markedly different from possessing the ability to live with the consequences of that decision on a continual basis. The desire noted in your original comments does not proceed the want, but is a manifestation of her willingness to live as he prefers.

Those who do not "desire" to "relinquish control" to this degree will not put forth the mental/emotional effort "to live with the consequences" -- that's both common sense and human nature, as people don't strive to succeed at that which they don't "desire".

quote:

2.  You have to mentally accept this type of dynamic -- sometimes even to a point of leaving yourself no emotional/financial escape.

Acceptance often comes in stages. The individual takes steps forward and falls back on occasion.

Sure... agreed.


You're basing everything off the "dynamic" which i find a little peculiar, but to each his own.

No, actually.. I'm not.  Rather, you're basing everything on your interpretation of an intentionally brief reply to the OP, which i find "peculiar", but to each his/her own -- questions, rather than assumptions, might have been the better road.  In fact, my post addressed the individual, in response to OP's question about the dynamic. Thus, with regard to the individual, I stated (i) desire, (ii) acceptance, and (iii) choice.


It's the way of life that she must accept but that doesn't arrive until the other pieces are firmly in place.

The above is in agreement with what I've stated, or at least intended to convey -- to "accept", after having chosen one "very carefully".

quote:

3.  You have to have chosen the one to own you very, very carefully.  There are no "limits"... the word "no" is no longer an option... you absolutely can (and will) be used in ways you may dislike... your absolute goal should is to be pleasing/useful to your Owner, no matter if you're being used in ways you may dislike -- but ultimately, you must know in your heart that no matter what, you belong to each other -- forever!!!  The two of you are cut from the same cloth... just from different ends.

i agree that ones selection is paramount. i don't subscribe to the idea of limits, but liken them to areas of discomfort. What i've seen in my own walk and noted in those i've mentored is the reality of the first factor and how it impacts everything else. Malleability on challenging subjects is highly influenced by who you're contorting for. What appears seemingly impossible for one can be readily assessed by another. Yet and still, there are those that prefer to have no fly zones in place that consciously seek partners that will permit them. Others pursue the opposite and willingly invite the challenge for a full submersion in the surrender they need.

I really like that... "I don't subscribe to the idea of limits, but liken them to areas of discomfort" -- that's fantastic!!!


my thoughts flow back to the Keeper. He's the gatekeeper in my mind and our interaction boils down to a fundamental commitment to the other that's rooted in trust. Without its presence there is no dominance or submission. At best it is theatrical roleplay that will inevitably hit a snag that cannot be surmounted.

Agreed... this is what I meant by, "it ain't nothin' you can fake."

The goals noted are admirable and easy to articulate when you have the right components in place. It's much harder to put in play when that is not the case. As such, nailing down the first will provide the seeds one needs to generate the rest.

Agreed.

quote:

For some, this is the proverbial "doormat", where for others it is absolute bliss!!!  An important point to remember in this type of relationship/dynamic is:  Just because one can be an abusive tyrant, it does not mean one will be an abusive tyrant -- with "abuse", of course, being defined in whatever manner suits you.

i remember a comment which suggested that every slave is someone's doormat. i have to admit, i find the idea very accurate. At least where i'm concerned. One can look upon it in the negative as something that is horribly trampled upon, or see it in its benevolent light and recollect the invitation and welcoming spirit one senses when it's encountered. For some it is merely a place to wipe ones feet, and others view it as a comforting reminder of home. The latter is the perspective i take on the subject. i have no shame in being His doormat. It's an honorable position to hold.

As with many things regarding this dynamic, I feel the "doormat" thing has gotten blown out of proportion -- primarly by those attempting to woo an s-type... embedding the "You don't want to be someone's doormat" thought in their heads, when the reality is, it's really quite subjective.  To many a 'nilla person, for example, even the lightest form of submission would be viewed as being a "doormat".  The whole thing has taken a silly turn for the worse... and I agree, that I see "no shame in being another's doormat" -- it is an "honorable position"... at least to one that's proven worthy of said "position".  

quote:

In a way, the mental aspect is akin to being a parent... can you leave and abandon your kids?  Sure.  Would you?!!  It's kinda the same mental commitment.

Abandonment and dismantling of relationships is a real factor within BDSM. Candy coating it and providing a comforting fairy tale doesn't diminish the realities that most fail to continue in the manner noted. Nonetheless, there are some that prefer to include an extra layer of protection so to speak, that binds all parties to the relationship on several planes. There are those that don't require such things and they're firm in their commitment to the other and have no reason to believe it will ever alter. Others like myself, prefer the benefits that the impression provides. It is a useful tool and one that instills some measure of calm that i've come to appreciate. Not leaving merely says, he'll do whatever it takes to keep this thing afloat, but he is really we in disguise. We're both in this together and will fight tooth and nail to remain that way.

That is, of course, the ideal... but unfortunately, as is often the case in any coupling (be it of the 'nilla, BDSM, or other ilk), too often, far too many proclaim their willingness to "fight tooth and nail", but do quite the opposite -- fleeing from both the certain and inevitable challenges/obstacles of any coupling, as well as the one they've chosen.  Worse, they're often fleeing from themselves, and not from any real obstacle.
 

Namaste,

~porcelaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

I disagree... I've found, more often than not, "one of the root causes behind the problems many encounter when attempting to live in this fastion", is their "fantasy" of it all, versus the "reality" -- those who "desire" to be owned by another (as property... no matter the point said "desire" surfaces), are not doing so from a place of kink/sex games (i.e., the primary motivation), but because they "desire" to be "owned" and to "belong" to one that's earned this position of authority, and proven themselves capable.

quote:

Secondly, to the point of an s-types "want for him that exceeds hers to the degree where doing what he says is desired", those who self-identify as either "sub" or "slave" both share this quality -- so it is absolutely not the mitigating factor.  Thus, you may call it the "dynamic", a mind-set, or whatever syntax of your choosing, but one has to "desire" (again, at some point) being owned property and accept all that this entails to succeed under the guise of a M/s TPE dynamic/relationship.  It doesn't work otherwise, as many have found who simply not willing/ready to relinquish such control to another.

quote:

No, actually.. I'm not.  Rather, you're basing everything on your interpretation of an intentionally brief reply to the OP, which i find "peculiar", but to each his/her own.  In fact, my post addressed the individual, in response to OP's question about the dynamic. Thus, with regard to the individual, I stated (i) desire, (ii) acceptance, and (iii) choice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

I disagree... I've found, more often than not, "one of the root causes behind the problems many encounter when attempting to live in this fastion", is their "fantasy" of it all, versus the "reality" -- those who "desire" to be owned by another (as property... no matter the point said "desire" surfaces), are not doing so from a place of kink/sex games (i.e., the primary motivation), but because they "desire" to be "owned" and to "belong" to one that's earned this position of authority, and proven themselves capable.

i'm not referencing weekend warriors, fantasists or card carrying members of the slap and tickle crew. my remarks are from the perspective of those seriously entering and undertaking relationships with the desire for permanency and ownership. The other parties noted are of no consequence since none of this would appeal to them for any duration.

One can "desire" both "permanency" and "ownership', yet never "desire", for lack of better word, "slavery".  Thus, I believe said "desire" for "slavery" (again, for lack of better word), is required -- either at the outset, or down the road.

quote:

Secondly, to the point of an s-types "want for him that exceeds hers to the degree where doing what he says is desired", those who self-identify as either "sub" or "slave" both share this quality -- so it is absolutely not the mitigating factor.  Thus, you may call it the "dynamic", a mind-set, or whatever syntax of your choosing, but one has to "desire" (again, at some point) being owned property and accept all that this entails to succeed under the guise of a M/s TPE dynamic/relationship.  It doesn't work otherwise, as many have found who simply not willing/ready to relinquish such control to another.

Your frequent use of the term does little to answer the question posed by the OP. And in my opinion it is too abstract.
 
Use of the word/term "dynamic", for me, is a catch-all, of sorts -- as not everyone is seeking a "relationship".  Thus, my use of the word/term "dynamic" is dones so as an umbrella for the varied types of couplings.

You provided a sweeping overview but gave no clue how one gets to that "state" that the individual can grab hold of.

Overview... yes, because each person is different -- thus, there is no one way "how one gets to that state". However, as has already stated, I feel the first step is the "desire" to relinquish all control, use, service to another.  For some, this may never occur... for some, it may easily occur... for some it may be dependent upon another... and for some, it may be dependent upon themselves.  Thus, without knowledge of the other person's triggers, an "overview" is appropriate -- desire and acceptance to one that's proven worthy and capable.

i'm not "calling" it anything. i can do this in my sleep and i also have assisted more than one person in reaching that point of wholehearted acceptance. So perhaps you can expound on this "desire" that saturates your posts?

I believe I have... one must (at some point) "desire" (i.e., want, need, strive to acquire, etc.) a "dynamic" (i.e., a couple, poly, mono, non-mono, love-centric, object-centric, etc.) where they have chosen a worthy/capable owner(s) "very carefully", and to "accept" the consequences of that choice. 
 

quote:

Those who do not "desire" to "relinquish control" to this degree will not put forth the mental/emotional effort "to live with the consequences" -- that's both common sense and human nature, as people don't stive to succeed at that which they don't "desire"

Then i would gather you've only had the benefit of wholly pliant persons that were completely malleable from the onset? i find that  hard to fathom. Heck, an animal resists and reactance is part of the program. Resistance in ONE aspect of ones slavery does not suggest that the individual has no desire to relinquish control OR be enslaved. It might suggest the dominant has hit a wall or sensitive area that will require additional methods to overthrow.

I believe I've specifically stated in this thread, "no matter the point said desire surfaces"... "again, at some point"... "Can this change, depending upon who they're with?  Sure... but then the 'desire' for that 'change' becomes present", so my commentary has not conformed to the "completely malleable from the onset" alleged.  Moreover, I agreed with your statement that, "Acceptance often comes in stages. The individual takes steps forward and falls back on occasion."  And sure, the "dominant has hit a wall" scenario can certainly exist.

quote:

No, actually.. I'm not.  Rather, you're basing everything on your interpretation of an intentionally brief reply to the OP, which i find "peculiar", but to each his/her own.  In fact, my post addressed the individual, in response to OP's question about the dynamic. Thus, with regard to the individual, I stated (i) desire, (ii) acceptance, and (iii) choice.

You posted an opinion and multiple people disagreed with your assessments. Whether you elect to respond to those comments is your choice.

I have responded to them.

And what else would i base my remarks on save what you've written?

As is common on boards such as this, it's a difference between making an assumption, rather than requesting clarification -- which I feel I have clarified sufficiently... hopefully, anyway?


You chose to say it was another person's decision to disagree rather than explain what you were implying.

Because (i) said disagreement was based in an incorrect assumption, or difference in definition, and (ii) anyone is free to disagree -- I'm don't seek converts... I participate in sharing my thoughts/views on topics of interest, nothing more.  Any and all are welcome to agree, disagree, or agree to disagree.
 

But you're right about one thing. It was overly brief...

You're welcome to write novels for posts, if you wish.  Personally, I've found when others have questions or require additional clarification, they'll ask.  And if they don't, then no further info was needed, and would have only been a waste.  My post was, in fact, longer and more detailed than others... it would be "thick" not to recognize that.  As I've already stated, I know nothing of the OP, so an "overview" is all that was realistically warranted -- again, as each person is different.  YMMV
 

Namaste,

~porcelaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

One can "desire" both "permanency" and "ownership', yet never "desire", for lack of better word, "slavery".  Thus, I believe said "desire" for "slavery" (again, for lack of better word), is required -- either at the outset, or down the road.

quote:

Use of the word/term "dynamic", for me, is a catch-all, of sorts -- as not everyone is seeking a "relationship".  Thus, my use of the word/term "dynamic" is dones so as an umbrella for the varied types of couplings.

quote:

Overview... yes, because each person is different -- thus, there is no one way "how one gets to that state". However, as has already stated, I feel the first step is the "desire" to relinquish all control, use, service to another.  For some, this may never occur... for some, it may easily occur... for some it may be dependent upon another... and for some, it may be dependent upon themselves.  Thus, without knowledge of the other person's triggers, an "overview" is appropriate -- desire and acceptance to one that's proven worthy and capable.

quote:

I believe I've specifically stated in this thread, "no matter the point said desire surfaces"... "again, at some point"... "Can this change, depending upon who they're with?  Sure... but then the 'desire' for that 'change' becomes present"

quote:

My post was, in fact, longer and more detailed than others... it would be "thick" not to recognize that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
So then the "desire" to be a "slave", giving complete control of her life to another is not there -- for her.

quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelaine

quote:

Use of the word/term "dynamic", for me, is a catch-all, of sorts -- as not everyone is seeking a "relationship".  Thus, my use of the word/term "dynamic" is dones so as an umbrella for the varied types of couplings.

Actually, i was referencing "desire" in that remark.

Ah, well... "desire", I feel is common enough a word that I think most know what it is -- if not, I had addressed it earlier.

quote:

Overview... yes, because each person is different -- thus, there is no one way "how one gets to that state". However, as has already stated, I feel the first step is the "desire" to relinquish all control, use, service to another.  For some, this may never occur... for some, it may easily occur... for some it may be dependent upon another... and for some, it may be dependent upon themselves.  Thus, without knowledge of the other person's triggers, an "overview" is appropriate -- desire and acceptance to one that's proven worthy and capable.

If multiple approaches are available as noted, desire wouldn't be a necessary component. The first step could be nothing more than showing up.

No. My commentary pertained to your statement of "how one gets to that state" -- i.e., the "acceptance" portion.  How one "gets to that state" will certainly vary from person to person, but nobody "gets to that state" if they don't wish to -- i.e., the "desire" portion of my commentary.
 

quote:

I believe I have... one must (at some point) "desire" (i.e., want, need, strive to acquire, etc.) a "dynamic" (i.e., a couple, poly, mono, non-mono, love-centric, object-centric, etc.) where they have chosen a worthy/capable owner(s) "very carefully", and to "accept" the consequences of that choice.

People desire lots of things. That doesn't mean they're going to commit themselves to securing that goal or put any action behind the thought. It's called wishful thinking for a reason.

For some, sure... it may only be fantasy or "wishful thinking".  For others, I believe if one desires to be another's slave (the goal), they will absolutely "commit themselves" to the "action" of doing/being so. 
 

quote:

I believe I've specifically stated in this thread, "no matter the point said desire surfaces"... "again, at some point"... "Can this change, depending upon who they're with?  Sure... but then the 'desire' for that 'change' becomes present"

In the best of situations that's how it goes down. But more than a few have the changes forced upon them before "desire" manifests. After all, we're operating on his time table not mine.

Sure... but if it's one's "desire" to be another's slave, then they've "accepted" said "changes upon them" -- else they'd "desire" to leave, and would do so.  If they stay, then nothing has been "forced".


i care very little about length.

Ah... so you're a girth girl, and not a size queen, then?!! [;)][:D]  (sowwy... couldn't wesist dat one!!! [8D])

Namaste,

~porcelaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
So then the "desire" to be a "slave", giving complete control of her life to another is not there -- for her.

and yet, she is my property and she obeys. Carol's desire or lack thereof isn't the relevant point. I'm the dominant one. It is my desire which shapes our marriage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: needlesandpins

blimey, this has cracked on a pace.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

Ah... so you're a girth girl, and not a size queen, then?!! [;)][:D]  (sowwy... couldn't wesist dat one!!! [8D])

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: needlesandpins

blimey, this has cracked on a pace.

Yeah... flippin' troublemaker, that's what you are!!! [;)][:D] (laffs)



[image]local://upfiles/687741/0726F40A05894DD2AEFBC757AE6571BC.jpg[/image]