RE: Mono vs poly?

RE: Mono vs poly? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/25/2013 12:51:16 AM)
FR I'd like to say that some of the views posted here are unique to the individual, or uncommon in the general dom population. I can't. If I were a newish sub looking, I would be very careful of anyone styling him/herself as a 'master.' It's my opinion that the people who can wear that title are rare indeed. The sort who would agree to monogamy knowing they wanted poly and planning on forcing that on someone once that thought the person was hooked would show his colors from the beginning, if you can read the signs. I would be on the alert for hurtful emotional manipulation and sadism, as well as passive-aggressive tendencies.

Spiritedsub2 -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/25/2013 8:18:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt ... The sort who would agree to monogamy knowing they wanted poly and planning on forcing that on someone once that thought the person was hooked would show his colors from the beginning, if you can read the signs. I would be on the alert for hurtful emotional manipulation and sadism, as well as passive-aggressive tendencies. Or read their forum posts [:D] It is too bad that more folks on the other side don't post here.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/25/2013 9:38:44 AM)
I have not seen that post. I must have missed it. I will go back and reread to find the person that posted that they would agree to it in the beginning knowing it was untrue. Seems like it has been more of an assumption than an actual post, but I may be wrong. quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt The sort who would agree to monogamy knowing they wanted poly and planning on forcing that on someone once that thought the person was hooked would show his colors from the beginning, if you can read the signs. I would be on the alert for hurtful emotional manipulation and sadism, as well as passive-aggressive tendencies.

CaringandReal -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/25/2013 3:17:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP What the hell does this have to do with the op? What the hell does any post on page 2 or later of a discussion have to do with the Op? Of course there is thread drift in any discussion but in this case it's clear that the poster you are responding to was answering njlauren's specific comments and questions. So... what's your beef? And why wasn't it with njlauren who led us down this garden path? (FWIW, NJ, I think your post was well in keeping with the Op, as was Marc's reply to you--I'm just trying to address Des's accusation that the poster above her was off topic.) quote: Look Marc, yeah, you can claim you're fine with her being monogamous and needing you to be the same and then saying "Ha ha, I lied and since you're now a slave, tough luck." But what will that get you? Did you mean this as a humorous post? If so, kudos. It made me laugh--very hard. (smile) What you're describing here has absolutely nothing to do what what Marcesadrian actually said in his post above yours. Rather than get into a "Yes he did--No he didn't" war, I challenge you to quote from his message the exact words that advocate masters go around lying to prospective slaves about being monogamous (or about anything else for that matter) and then go, "Ha ha! I lied! It's Poly City, Babe!" once they become slaves. Quote it. You will be unable to because it just isn't there. But I would enjoy seeing you try. What Marc has actually said in this thread is the same thing he's been saying over and over during the long years that I have been reading him here and elsewhere: he advocates extreme openness and honesty at all times between prospective masters and slaves because such relationships can be so intense and so difficult. If both people are not fully on board with them, things can and will go South fast. He is making the accurate (in my experience) point that master-slave relationships often involve the slave consenting to non-negotiation (great twist of an old, worn phrase, Marc). In some of these relationships, once you're a slave--that's it. There's no more choice involved and both parties want it that way. So you better be sure that you are serving the master or mistress you want to be serving for the rest of your life or you, as the slave, will be pretty miserable. It is always the best policy in such a situation for the controlling party to be as honest as possible about what the slave can expect with them, and Marcesadrian says that repeatedly in virtually all his writings about masters and slaves. He's never once that I've seen advocated the type of low, buffoonish trickery that you are accusing him of promoting.

littlewonder -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/25/2013 5:13:08 PM)
Op, my suggestion is to not use "slave" as your designation on the other side. Use "submissive". You can always discuss with someone as you get to know each other about just how submissive you are to the point of being a slave, if you are really interested in that man. My experience has been that once you designate yourself as "slave" you bring out the "Master" type who think they can use you and abuse you before they even get to know you. You may truly be a slave but there's no reason you need to announce that to everyone on here before you even get to know them.

TieMeInKnottss -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/25/2013 5:48:05 PM)
LW...I was thinking the exact same thing.. I changed my designation to "slave" because I am closer to being a slave then a sub... Most of the men I met as a sub were too lenient...not as into the total control and discipline that I prefer. The men I met as a slave were more in line with my expectations and needs with the exception of the monogamy thing but, having sampled both designations... It seems that, on the other side, "slave" is more to just the sexual than the mental control... I don't know..I think I may just be off kilter...maybe I need a vacation

littlewonder -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/25/2013 5:52:36 PM)
I would just be patient. You just had a breakup. You can't expect to find someone overnight. I was single for 8 years before I found Master. During that time I ran into every single type of person you can think of. That's why I just gave up on really looking and just was enjoying my time being single and doing things for myself and not really caring if I met someone even though I knew deep down I wanted to be with someone. But I knew I couldn't just sit around and be miserable until then. I had to pay attention to the rest of my life. My suggestion is just be you. Enjoy your life. And when the right man comes along it will happen organically.

DesFIP -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/25/2013 5:55:13 PM)
C&R: nobody starts as a slave on a first date. So there has to be full disclosure before you get to that state. Which means that if the prospective M was honest, most might become s's wouldn't go for a second date. You have to be upfront before you get to the M & s stage. If you aren't, then expect your house of cards to come crashing down around you at some point. Just like you should expect your real house to come crashing down around you if you bulldoze the foundation. Oh yeah, there's thread drift and deliberate off topics. You believe NJLauren was the hijacker, I read it differently.

ivone57 -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/25/2013 5:55:38 PM)
im totally and completely monogamous for now... i say for now cause you never know what tomorrow may turn out

tazzygirl -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/25/2013 10:37:38 PM)
quote: If you don't have that in your midst, if your "slave" insists on heavy conditions to the arrangement, like something as banal as other women in the circle and will indeed throw in the towel if you decide you want another, you are not in possession of a slave, but what's commonly called a "submissive." And you probably don't even have that. I could almost agree with you... almost. I think its a huge fallacy to believe that someone isnt a submissive simply because they dont follow along blindly. A submissive retains the rights to have some say in her relationships, based upon most dynamics I have seen. Having said that, do you honestly believe that, from day one, when a collar is placed, a slave is a slave? That is the ultimate goal for those who enter into an M/s relationship. But I dont buy into the belief that it happens with that click of the lock. That path is a long one for many, requiring trust and growth on both sides. I consider it a Master's place to guide me where he wants me to go. If I am not willing, perhaps he has not mastered me to that place yet. Does that mean it will never happen? It may or it may not. But to dismiss someone so out of hand as not even being submissive is a little "one twue wayistic" for me. That may be how you see it. Its not how everyone else views it. Each relationship is different and grows at different rates.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/25/2013 10:38:26 PM)
So no one actually said they were lying in the beginning and then changing things afterwards? No wonder I cannot find that post then. The advice that enslavement does not happen right away is good advice, but that does not mean someone doesn't want to be enslaved to someone that is right for them. The issue is usually unreasonable expectations on either the D type of s type side. I recommend a lot of getting to know each other. I have seen s types change who they are a couple of months in, as I am sure that D types do as well, just like in any inter-personal relationship. If you are the type that cannot handle your D type possibly having something extra, to another completely involved then mention that right up front. Then if they do think about changing their mind, the D type will already have that information to be part of their decision making process. As has been stated, it is their right to do so, but it will also be pretty stupid to do so unless they don't put a lot of value on the s type. I also agree that a good owner will take all aspects into account concerning the health and well being of their property. They will know ahead of time what could be extreme harm to them emotionally and psychologically. It was also been stated that there are very few good owners out there. Discuss this during the meeting phase and don't get involved on a lie from either side, whether it is the s type saying they might be able to handle it if it was done right or a D type saying they never would as some type of way for either to make the relationship work for right then. It would be a stupid D type or s type to try and start things off based on dishonesty.

Summerhaze -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 4:20:57 AM)
well...... i guess in an ideal world i would prefer one to one i mean in an ideal world how fabulous if one person could fullfill and satisfy all your needs and desires? however, i do see someone who is seeing someone else... we have touched on bdsm, well quite a lot imo, only he seems to think we do more in the way of rough sex than bdsm..... although i think this may well start to go a bit further....its my first experience with a dom you see...... so anyway, he sees someone else, they dont see an awful lot of eachother...... and although i would rather one to one... i find him pretty amazing.... i guess i am still on the look out for a suitable partner that i can have that special one to one relationship with.... but i am intrigued with this man enough to continue seeing him..... no, its not ideal, but it does mean i can still explore as i kind of think that he doesnt own me (even though the idea of being owned is very nice) so therefore i am free to explore other relationships too.... ideally though one to one would be fab x

kalikshama -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 5:59:47 AM)
quote: im totally and completely monogamous for now... i say for now cause you never know what tomorrow may turn out In that case, you might want to remove the word "discreation" from your profile as it sends the opposite message. Love the husky pic!

njlauren -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 10:57:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TieMeInKnottss LW...I was thinking the exact same thing.. I changed my designation to "slave" because I am closer to being a slave then a sub... Most of the men I met as a sub were too lenient...not as into the total control and discipline that I prefer. The men I met as a slave were more in line with my expectations and needs with the exception of the monogamy thing but, having sampled both designations... It seems that, on the other side, "slave" is more to just the sexual than the mental control... I don't know..I think I may just be off kilter...maybe I need a vacation While I have my own thoughts on slavery and such and what it means or doesn't mean, others had a good thought, and that is you might want to change your designation, in that people tend to be like those on here who see a slave contract as being the absolute consent/non consent and would have to include anything, including the idea that they could seriously hurt or kill their slave and that was okay.....rather than that, change your status to 'seeking a total control D/s with the right person'....among other things, someone reading that, especially the 'master type' we are talking about, would know more about what you seek instead of being owned property with no rights as they see it. Plus, my thought is as others have alluded to, start with a D/s and let that evolve into an M/s. I asked a friend of mine the distinction years ago about the M/s, D/s dynamic, and she said that in the end, you are a slave if you and the M feel you are in that, that it doesn't matter what others think, and that may work for you. The nice part about any kind of BD/SM relationship is they evolve, and by taking it as a D/s of whatever level of control, and letting it evolve, means both sides know what the other one wants, is thinking about, instead of getting into an M/s then having a nasty surprise when said M tells you that he/she is going to sell you to someone else and that is that, or whatever, you know what you are getting into and have the trust that they won't decide dieu et mon droit and do something they know would hurt you.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 12:14:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren absolute consent/non consent and would have to include anything, including the idea that they could seriously hurt or kill their slave and that was okay..... Seriously where the fuck do you get this shit? Did I miss another post or are these more dishonest statements being made to make things appear as they are not?

njlauren -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 1:52:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf So no one actually said they were lying in the beginning and then changing things afterwards? No wonder I cannot find that post then. The advice that enslavement does not happen right away is good advice, but that does not mean someone doesn't want to be enslaved to someone that is right for them. The issue is usually unreasonable expectations on either the D type of s type side. I recommend a lot of getting to know each other. I have seen s types change who they are a couple of months in, as I am sure that D types do as well, just like in any inter-personal relationship. If you are the type that cannot handle your D type possibly having something extra, to another completely involved then mention that right up front. Then if they do think about changing their mind, the D type will already have that information to be part of their decision making process. As has been stated, it is their right to do so, but it will also be pretty stupid to do so unless they don't put a lot of value on the s type. I also agree that a good owner will take all aspects into account concerning the health and well being of their property. They will know ahead of time what could be extreme harm to them emotionally and psychologically. It was also been stated that there are very few good owners out there. Discuss this during the meeting phase and don't get involved on a lie from either side, whether it is the s type saying they might be able to handle it if it was done right or a D type saying they never would as some type of way for either to make the relationship work for right then. It would be a stupid D type or s type to try and start things off based on dishonesty. Well written and I agree totally. I don't think M's lie going into the relationship (or potential s's lie), I think it is either a sin of omission where it never comes up, or it is one of those things where the M is poly but doesn't think he would want to be with this particular s, or the s doesn't bring up being monogamous assuming the M will be..... I think there is another point, that if an M comes to find out he is poly, if he went into the relationship thinking he was monogamous and then suddenly has strong desires, I personally think despite having the power to simply do it, he IMO owes it to himself and his sub to talk about it and give the s an out, because this was never brought up.Yes, the s might have signed on to allow the M total control, but there were assumptions when they went in, unspoken ones, and while an M could say 'hey, they signed on for this', it would be pretty foolish not to talk about it, and if the s couldn't deal with it, if it looked like it would hurt him/her, then uncollar them. As much as this is supposed to be slavery, where anything goes the M wants, in the end it is a human relationship, with two people, and as Michael Crichton in Jurassic park said (talking about scientists being able to do something, but not asking if they should), "they get so hung up they can do something, they forget to ask themselves if they should"...I think an M would be quite wise in using their power, cause as in the bad old days of real slavery, make the conditions bad for the slave you could find yourself with a mess.

njlauren -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 2:07:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren absolute consent/non consent and would have to include anything, including the idea that they could seriously hurt or kill their slave and that was okay..... Seriously where the fuck do you get this shit? Did I miss another post or are these more dishonest statements being made to make things appear as they are not? No, Orion, this has been debated on other boards, and I know of real life cases where it got to this level. On another board, there were people into this kind of shit, and there were raging debates about the power of the M, and I obviously made clear that when it involved someone's physical well being or their life, that that was a line with this, and took a lot of shit from people claiming i was judging. It is the problem with 'total power' relationships, on where you draw the line. With two of the people posting on said board, a friend of mine on the board (who I know in real life, mind you) knew two of the female slaves who were talking this way, and both of them ended up in emergency rooms, with broken bones, one of them had her kids taken away from her because police found credible evidence that he had beaten her so hard it broke bones, and she was still with him, saying she had consented to that, and I have heard this discussed for many years, that in a TPE or a total M/s, the M has the right to do what they want, period, and the s has no recourse, even when it involves physical violence. I am not talking an accident in scene play, I am talking where the M was an abusive dickhead who got his rocks off breaking bones and such......and the absolute crowd for the 30 years I have been into this, have said basically that is the M's right. I don't agree, it is where the whole 'your kink is your kink' breaks down to me, but it exists, it isn't bullshit. Put it this way, in response to when I said that if an s would be emotionally damaged by her M being poly, the response on here from many was that was his right, that when you sign an ownership relationship it covers everything, the s's life is totally in his hands..if you say that the s can walk away, that is true, but there are those out there who say, who believe, the s cannot leave unless the s let's them go, otherwise 'it isn't slavery', and there are s's who literally live by that. BTW, it is also why this kind of slavery isn't 'real' in the dictionary sense, despite what people citing dictionary definitions said, in 'real life slavery' a slave owner could kill their slaves with impunity, many of them did, weather it was beating them to death, strangling them, lynching them or for any reason they desired, or not feeding the right, the difference between real slavery in this is the slave has the right to walk away, and an M who tried to stop them would end up in Jail. There is a line there, but there are people who don't follow that. Both you and the other guy were saying the M has the right to do anything they wish, and that could easily include doing what I just said, and it goes on in some quarters. Emotional damage may not be as horrible as physical damage, but it is damage nonetheless. An M who has a sub who is claustrophobic and decides to lock them in a box could end up driving them into a psychotic state or into a catatonic one, when you take on the M role with the idea you can do anything, you literally are taking on the power to screw someone up, hurt them, and that is my point, that claiming 'absolute power' to do what they wish, because that is what an M is, has potential issues with it.

JeffBC -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 3:56:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren Put it this way, in response to when I said that if an s would be emotionally damaged by her M being poly, the response on here from many was that was his right, that when you sign an ownership relationship it covers everything, the s's life is totally in his hands..if you say that the s can walk away, that is true, but there are those out there who say, who believe, the s cannot leave unless the s let's them go, otherwise 'it isn't slavery', and there are s's who literally live by that. OK, I gotta admit, I've read this post several times and I just don't understand the nature of your concern. It's not just the above quote.. .it's all of it. You talk about "lines" in a total power relationship which makes zero sense to me. You talk about bad people doing bad shit to each other -- which sounds like human nature to me. So yes, bad people can get together and form bad relationships which pretend to be TPE in some way. Near as I know this happens regularly. What is your concern?

SerWhiteTiger -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 5:19:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TieMeInKnottss One TINY, TINY rant... I am sure there are many men who can sustain two relationships...offer equal support, emotional balance, never play favorites..but HONESTLY???? Most men, vanilla or kinky, seem to have a hard enough time translating and understanding ONE woman enough to have ONE successful relationship...let alone the time management skills for juggling a full-time career, kids, and "quality time" for 2 or more women!!! Yes, most men aren't Doms.

SerWhiteTiger -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 5:37:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren BTW, it is also why this kind of slavery isn't 'real' in the dictionary sense, despite what people citing dictionary definitions said, in 'real life slavery' a slave owner could kill their slaves with impunity, many of them did, weather it was beating them to death, strangling them, lynching them or for any reason they desired, or not feeding the right, the difference between real slavery in this is the slave has the right to walk away, and an M who tried to stop them would end up in Jail. There is a line there, but there are people who don't follow that. Both you and the other guy were saying the M has the right to do anything they wish, and that could easily include doing what I just said, and it goes on in some quarters. Emotional damage may not be as horrible as physical damage, but it is damage nonetheless. An M who has a sub who is claustrophobic and decides to lock them in a box could end up driving them into a psychotic state or into a catatonic one, when you take on the M role with the idea you can do anything, you literally are taking on the power to screw someone up, hurt them, and that is my point, that claiming 'absolute power' to do what they wish, because that is what an M is, has potential issues with it. If two people are really mentally engaging in M/s and not just roleplaying, the M has the power to really mentally screw up their s and hurt them regardless of any restrictions or agreements. Restrictions such as "only monogamy" don't stop this, they only make it easier for the submissive to trust. It could be argued that this is actually a bad thing, because anything that makes it harder for a submissive to trust someone to the point of allowing that person to enslave them is a good thing. Look at how frivolously people enter into M/s relationships when they have no idea wtf they're doing. Maybe it would be better if they didn't think they were so safe. How often is a slave submitting and placing their trust in a "Master" who isn't responsible enough to wear the title? I shudder to think. You pointed out just how common it was yourself.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625