RE: Mono vs poly? (Full Version)

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



Message

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 6:08:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

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."


Out of sheer morbid amusement, I'm going to repeat CaringandReal's challenge and ask you, again, if you could you please quote me where I said anything close to this? I await your reply.


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

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.


Are we only talking theory here, Tazzy? I'd like to know, as I'm speaking in terms of what I actually do. This is not a matter of "belief," but policy and methodology that has worked quite well thus far.

But to cut to the chase, yes, when the mantle is taken up with all due reflection and awareness, a slave is a slave from that moment she is seen as such in my eyes—which takes some doing, mind you. She may have her moments of trial, weakness, fear, doubt, and even disobedience, but that's what a keen mind and a well plied whip is for, not to mention a fine thread count of sincerity form both parties. And enslaving someone has nothing to do with a collar or even its symbolism. What is of the utmost importance is the mind, as I'm sure you're well aware.



JeffBC -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 6:30:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
I think its a huge fallacy to believe that someone isn't a submissive simply because they don't follow along blindly.

Well yes but this is BDSM... and worse... online BDSM. That means everything must be readily reducible down to simple labels me "Me Tarzan. You Slave".

For the record Carol remains one of the more generally submissive personalities I've run across in my life (defined as "choosing to adopt a stance of deference rather than command in most life situations). Yet she still has a wide variety of other personality attributes which include things like "survival instinct". Amazingly, having a strong preference to deference does not turn her into something other than human.



tazzygirl -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 7:06:40 PM)

quote:

Are we only talking theory here, Tazzy?


In my case, no, only experience.

quote:

I'd like to know, as I'm speaking in terms of what I actually do. This is not a matter of "belief," but policy and methodology that has worked quite well thus far.


And I am speaking in terms of what I have had done to me.

quote:

And enslaving someone has nothing to do with a collar or even its symbolism. What is of the utmost importance is the mind, as I'm sure you're well aware.


I am well aware, which is my point. Everyone woman starts off as someone you just met, then moves into submissive, then, eventually, into slave. That trip varies depending on the two people, but very rarely is it a jump from someone you just met to a deeply devoted, mastered slave.



ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 7:11:34 PM)

FR: For all you male doms ranting about some of the replies, I'm going to go waaaaaaay out on a limb and say you have't experience being a female submissive looking for a dominant.

The bait of monogamy and the switch of poly is a game I have seen reenacted time and time again. I even had someone try to pull it on me. He said "Don't you presume to tell *me* about poly relationships." Well I did presume, as I'm a strong believer in ethical poly or ethical mono, whatever it is you have agreed to do.

In my time as an online DJ, I've learned that the term 'master' seems to mean someone who styles themselves a poly (though couldn't herd one female into a paper bag). The use of the term 'slave' seems to indicate someone who will agree to poly or to the bait and switch. Please note there is a huge exception to this in the leather world, of which I am not a part.

In any case I would never seek a 'master' nor self identify as a slave if I were currently looking.



SerWhiteTiger -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 7:36:21 PM)

Who's ranting?



NuevaVida -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 7:42:01 PM)

~ Fast Reply ~

It's a weird and sometimes tough subject for me. I've experienced some pretty emotionally damaging stuff in the past, along the lines of poly and needing to go along with whatever because I was a slave. At this point it doesn't matter that he wasn't ethical about it; what matters is that I still carry some of that damage with me, and have not yet worked through all of it.

Because of that, when the Mister and I began our conversations, I was really adamant that I could not be in a poly relationship, and that I could not handle play/sex/etc. outside the confines of our relationship. There was a seriously intense internal feeling of trauma at the thought of it.

At the same time, however, I did not bill myself as a slave. I hardly considered myself submissive when we met, in fact. However, my telling him what I told him was his opportunity to continue creating what we were creating, or to move along. He chose to continue. It wasn't necessarily Master/slave that he was looking for, but the right connection in which both parties were fed.

As we continued forward, I didn't like the idea of him suppressing something he wanted for the sake of the relationship, and I wanted to face my fears and concerns. I hate the idea of the past limiting the future. So we talked...and talked...and talked...and tiptoed into those waters very carefully. And when the rubber came within a mile of the road, I Freaked. The. Fuck. Out.

Wasn't ready. And I felt terrible about it. I wanted him to have what he wanted. I suggested he let me go and find someone who could give him that. He insisted *I* was what he wanted, and sacrificing external pleasures wasn't really something he considered a sacrifice. It wasn't a need; it was a "could be enjoyable - - like ice cream" sort of thing.

That was a couple of years ago. Since then, we've brought someone to our bed, together. No drama, no issues, and we learned from it and grew from it.

I no longer get that horrid feeling in my gut at the idea of him going off and having sex with someone else. We've talked about it. He says he doesn't want to. If he changed his mind I do think I wouldn't freak out about it.

As for poly in the sense of another relationship, no, as of today I could not handle it, unless it's one of those rare cases where someone just slides right into our relationship as though they belonged here all along. Otherwise, it's an emotional limitation for me. If it were to be a strong desire of his, he'd need to be with someone other than me, and I'd need to let go of him so he could do that. But for the past 4+ years now, he says he does not want more than one full time woman in his life, and I believe that.

Whether that makes me a slave or not really is not a concern to me. We're moving along happily together, and fulfilled, and life is good. He considers me his slave, I always smirk and say I'm not so sure.

I agree, TieMeInKnotts, with the suggestion of putting "submissive" on your profile for now. I can't consider myself a slave until I feel enslaved to someone. And for me, that's been a pretty long process. For me, the important thing was to be with someone I fit well with, whatever we called ourselves. But for me, being enslaved is not a need, and for him, being a Master is not a need. The D/s part was a need, but evolving into M/s would be an organic transformation.



njlauren -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 8:03:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

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?



My concern is quite frankly that anyone could justify a 'total power relationship' where literally the M had the level of power of life or death or the right to really hurt someone, I think quite frankly there is a line between a TPE and one that has moved into the realm of a pyschotic abuser doing what he/she wants. I don't believe as some have thrown back at me that an s doesn't have the option or the duty to protect themselves, which means basically walking away from a bad relationship...a bad TPE is a bad relationship, I agree, and my point is that there is a line between a relationship that is valid and one that is over the line, that is bad. I don't care if it is a married couple where the husband is giving his wife a black eye or knocking her teeth out, or a TPE where the self styled master is basically abusing the crap out their slave (I am talking serious injury here, I am not talking edge play, I am talking someone breaking bones and the like.


You say it is bad people pretending to be in a TPE, and I agree totally about that, I don't think it is a TPE, but for example, when I said if I knew of a couple like this, where the supposed M was doing things like breaking bones or starving their s for days on end, I would step in the same way I would if I knew of a wife getting abused in my neighborhood (or try to get her help), I got back from scene people that it wasn't my right to judge it, and they would tell you the same thing, that since the s decided to accept the M's collar, it was his right to do that....you called it bad, they would tell you you were wrong for saying it.

My point is that a total power exchange relationship cannot be absolute, in the sense that there has to be lines there, which you seem to be agreeing with, otherwise you wouldn't be calling what I described as a supposed TPE or bad people doing bad things, which I agree with, what bothers me is people defended those kind of 'bad' relationships by saying it was perfectly valid, and i don't agree.



njlauren -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 8:15:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SerWhiteTiger


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.


Of course, an M can blow through boundaries and limitations, the same way anyone is scene play can. I don't think an s should ever be complacent, in many ways you are making the same point I am, and at the very least if the M does something that is hurtful and claims dieu et mon droit, and says that is my right, the s has the right to walk away, that when trust is blown that relationship is likely dead, I don't care what kind it is. That said, if an M gets an s into a TPE, knowing what the s is like, and blows past what they know are limits, then the s should run the other way, because it should set off alarm bells, because it means the M doesn't care about them, property or not, and fundamentally the point is an s should realize how dangerous this kind of power structure is, and reserve the right to bail themselves out if they truly feel like it is dangerous. I have seen more than a few people over the past 30 years or so enter into these kind of relationships, people who were very sub, who assumed being a slave was the next right step for them, they insisted the relationship was total, that it was until the M released them, ran into foul waters, and seemed caught in a conundrum, where they literally were turning foul emotionally in the M/s, but couldn't/wouldn't try to get the M to listen to their concerns (since they were a slave) or get themselves out of it (because they signed on this was absolute, no way out).....some of them were fortunate enough to have M's who realized they were in distress and either worked out the issues, or helped them move out of the relationship, some of them had people who literally didn't care, and a couple of them ended in serious crisis, I am talking a psychotic break on the part of the slave......the point of letting the M know about limits is to avoid entering a relationship under false pretenses in the first place, so they know whether they can accept that, and what to be concerned about, but I agree it is not something to say "oh I have his/her agreement, so I am okay"...



SerWhiteTiger -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 8:57:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
in many ways you are making the same point I am



Yes, I know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

and at the very least if the M does something that is hurtful and claims dieu et mon droit, and says that is my right, the s has the right to walk away, that when trust is blown that relationship is likely dead, I don't care what kind it is.


Yes, the s should. My entire point is that claiming the right to do and doing are not the same. Power exchange is all about the submissive giving the dominant the power and then the dominant not abusing it.

Do you see anyone in this thread actually saying that the dominant should abuse the power they were given? Or are people simply saying that part of being a slave means giving up the power?

I don't recall anyone here saying that they would actually engage in polyamory after tricking their slave into becoming a slave with claims of monogamy when they know full well that that would mentally damage their slave. I see people arguing against that, but I don't see where anyone made that claim.

Tonight, I teased my slave on the phone about tying her up and blindfolding her in a hotel room and having a bunch of strange men come in and fuck her. I have the power to do this. Any time you let someone tie you up outside of a controlled public environment, you give them the power to do this. Even in a controlled public environment, you're giving the group this power. That's kind of the whole point. Some submissives would completely love for me to do this to them. Others would be completely and totally broken by it.

Just because the power is exchanged doesn't mean the Dom should or will abuse it. You are arguing that a person should not give up the power of polyamory when they become a slave if they are not monogamous. But really, if the person they are choosing to become a "slave" to cannot be trusted with that power, then they shouldn't be becoming their slave.

Now, personally, I am polyamorous, and I would not accept a slave who did not accept that. But supposing I were not polyamorous or that I was okay with monogamy with a particular slave, I might still ask for the power of polyamory even though I had no intention of ever using it. And if my slave rejected giving me that power, I would know that my slave's trust in me was insufficient for them to be my slave.

Yes, it is a very sad truth that there are a lot of people out there that are completely and totally abusing the power they are given by submissives in this lifestyle. And it is very important for submissives to be a lot more sure about trusting someone than a lot of them tend to be. But a good and loving Dominant can ask their slave for power with no intention of abusing that power in a way that would hurt them. And the harder it is to give that power to your Dominant, the deeper the trust and intimacy of your relationship. I will always be pushing my slave to place more and more trust in me and give more and more power to me. I have no intention of ever abusing it. That's kind of the point. Just because there are so many bad Doms out there doesn't mean that everyone who asks for X power is a bad Dom.



Spiritedsub2 -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 9:03:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt
...
The bait of monogamy and the switch of poly is a game I have seen reenacted time and time again....
In my time as an online DJ, I've learned that the term 'master' seems to mean someone who styles themselves a poly (though couldn't herd one female into a paper bag). The use of the term 'slave' seems to indicate someone who will agree to poly or to the bait and switch.
In any case I would never seek a 'master' nor self identify as a slave if I were currently looking.

I appreciate this posting; I didn't know about the common link between self-annointed master status and poly. I have certainly noted some less than inspiring correlations between "master" and other personality attributes. The sense of entitlement to multiple women fits the somewhat common pattern I've observed. I think you've saved me a lot of time and grief with this post [:)]



ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 9:33:09 PM)

Thank you Spirited, it is my intention to help others, not denigrate (okay, well mostly).




ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 9:40:58 PM)

quote:

Yes, the s should. My entire point is that claiming the right to do and doing are not the same. Power exchange is all about the submissive giving the dominant the power and then the dominant not abusing it.

Do you see anyone in this thread actually saying that the dominant should abuse the power they were given? Or are people simply saying that part of being a slave means giving up the power?


Look, I'm *in* a relationship in which I am sexually monogamous (though I have a male sub), but he does not have to be. But I didn't enter into that agreement until I was quite sure he wasn't a scalp taker. Perhaps you are not aware of it, but there are many, many men who bring the 'counting coup' idea to their interpersonal relationships (see Jeff's very astute comment below).

And very often the ones in this lifestyle call themselves 'masters.' This is common thinking. That it is not common thinking by you does not mean it's not extremely common, most especially online.


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC


As near as I can tell accumulating slaves is how "dominants" count coup.





SerWhiteTiger -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 10:02:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

quote:

Yes, the s should. My entire point is that claiming the right to do and doing are not the same. Power exchange is all about the submissive giving the dominant the power and then the dominant not abusing it.

Do you see anyone in this thread actually saying that the dominant should abuse the power they were given? Or are people simply saying that part of being a slave means giving up the power?


Look, I'm *in* a relationship in which I am sexually monogamous (though I have a male sub), but he does not have to be. But I didn't enter into that agreement until I was quite sure he wasn't a scalp taker. Perhaps you are not aware of it, but there are many, many men who bring the 'counting coup' idea to their interpersonal relationships (see Jeff's very astute comment below).

And very often the ones in this lifestyle call themselves 'masters.' This is common thinking. That it is not common thinking by you does not mean it's not extremely common, most especially online.




You did not in any way disagree with anything that I've said, but your tone implies that you're trying to.

Psst, I'm also in the same type of relationship on the other side.

Where did I say it wasn't common thinking? Common thinking about D/s is a bunch of BS. 50 Shades of Grey is common thinking. In this forum, are we supposed to treat 50 Shades of Grey as the default reality of D/s and constantly clarify that that's not what we're talking about because everyone assumes it is? I assumed that the default here would be to assume that we're talking about actual D/s and then correct people who come in with their 50 Shades common thinking about where they are wrong.



ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 10:09:38 PM)

quote:

Just because there are so many bad Doms out there doesn't mean that everyone who asks for X power is a bad Dom.


I didn't even imply that. Though I will say that those who ask for specific types of power early on are showing their red flag underwear.




MarcEsadrian -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 10:24:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Everyone woman starts off as someone you just met, then moves into submissive, then, eventually, into slave.


Very, very few make it to slave, for very, very few are actualized enough to have it within them to embrace it in the first place. Those who do have that drive have a calling; they have a certain itch that requires a certain scratch, to put it mildly. Those are the only ones, quite frankly, who appeal to me, for they are the only ones who manage to walk the full mile, in the end. I spend 0% time attempting to convince those not touched by the vision to somehow contrive it within themselves. Many are fit for general submission, but not cut out for slavery...which involves far more than putting up with a silly threesome on a Saturday night, I might add. Sexual dynamics are the least of the larger concerns for the slave's freedom over her very life, assuming overt sexual use is even in the cards for her.



quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
That trip varies depending on the two people, but very rarely is it a jump from someone you just met to a deeply devoted, mastered slave.

The trip varies, indeed, but it's the destination, once again, that is the crux. If one is not deeply devoted and mastered, as you say, if one is still in a constant negotiation stage with the "master," one is not in a state of slavery. It is a state of tentative and conditioned submission, but not slavery.




ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 10:28:52 PM)

quote:

very, very few are actualized enough to have it within them to embrace it in the first place.


What a complete and total crock, paying service to the 'my slavey slave is somehow *better* than your mere submissive.'




MarcEsadrian -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 10:30:53 PM)

Don't be jealz, Chatte. It's ok.



ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 10:32:39 PM)

I'm not familiar with the term 'jealz' please elucidate me.



SerWhiteTiger -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 10:44:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

quote:

Just because there are so many bad Doms out there doesn't mean that everyone who asks for X power is a bad Dom.


I didn't even imply that. Though I will say that those who ask for specific types of power early on are showing their red flag underwear.




Very, very true. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that those who ask for any power at all early on are showing their red flag underwear. I might even say that anyone who needs to ask for power is showing a few red flags. A Dominant shouldn't be asking a submissive for power. A Dominant should be aware of what power a submissive is offering them and taking that which they want out of what is offered.

On the other hand, if a submissive is offering to be a slave, a Dominant might then want to see how serious they are by asking for all sorts of powers. Because an offering of slavehood is something to be taken extremely seriously, and a Dominant shouldn't want to make any mistakes.

Of course, that comment you quoted was in response to someone else's post, not yours, so I have no idea why you feel the need to say you didn't imply that.



MarcEsadrian -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/26/2013 10:51:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SerWhiteTiger
Of course, that comment you quoted was in response to someone else's post, not yours, so I have no idea why you feel the need to say you didn't imply that.


It seems par for the course with this thread. All sorts of stuff that was never said or implied is being found in between the lines, nonetheless. Enjoy.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125