RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this

RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (Full Version)

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

Message

UllrsIshtar -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (2/27/2014 7:43:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady No offense intended, but since we are trying to negotiate a relationsip with each other, its just simpler to accept we see it differently. It isn't that I don't want to understand your view point, more that I think we both have better ways to spend our time on this thread. Agreed quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady First I put your example in the same category as trying tto explain to an anorexic or drug addict the danges of their choice. They are so caught up in what they are doing, in this case the hotness of the activity, that they can't think of the future risks. The problem I have with that point of view is if and when it leads to the concluding that it's ok force people to be protected against themselves for their own sake. Not saying you're doing that, but it's something I'm, for personal history reasons, very sensitive about. Yes an anorexic and a drug addict delude themselves about the dangerous of their choices. And maybe laura is too. But in the end, even if that's what they're doing, it's still a choice I believe they should be free to make. Sure, you can warn them. You can even warn them a couple of times, in the hopes it'll drive home the point. But there comes to be a point where warning them becomes preaching, and looking out for their safety and protecting them against themselves becomes force. Again, not saying that you're currently doing that, but it's a slippery slope once you decide that a person can't -instead of won't- consider future risks. I firmly believe that when you're dealing with adults who actively choose to harm themselves, there are only so many time it's polite to point this out. After a while you just need to accept that they don't want to listen to you, and that they're free to ignore all the good advice in the world if they so please. You can't force them to see the light by repetition, in fact, a lot of times that will just create more resistance towards what you're trying to say, because the person ends up feeling like you're trying to deny them their right to their own identity.

LafayetteLady -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (2/27/2014 9:47:55 PM)
I agree it is a slippery slope. However, although not in this case, there are times when it is necessary to protect someone, even an adult from themselves. On these boards, it would not be often although I can think of times when it was necessary. There have been times when many people have had to strongly suggest (push) someone towards some mental health help. Here we can't do much more than that, and I can certainly see how those times might seem preachy to some. As for that making an adult more resistant...well that's just childish behavior. What the OP did here coming back is the more adult thing to do. After her post, I simply reminded her that my advice doesn't have an expiration date and strongly suggested she and her husband seriously consider the health risks of the morning ritual. The rest of the talk about it has been between you and I, so I don't count that as advice to her. Hopefully, the OP and her husband figure out a compromise to can satisfy both their needs because as I mentioned I saw on one of the blogs in her sig line that there is about to be or already is a child shared by them. They both owe it to that child to try to communicate and do what they can to make things work.

littlewonder -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (2/28/2014 8:52:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze The whole urine thing is pretty dangerous and if he doesn't even want to listen to her, it shows a complete disregard for her health, which I find rather worrying. I don't understand why this is a big deal to everyone. People cant hold their pee for a little while? I have meetings at work that can last an hour or more. I don't walk out ifI have to pee.I hold it till after. I don't want to interrupt or miss something important or I may be the one holding the meeting. I commute on a train everyday an hour and 15 mins for work. Most days I have to pee while on board but there is no way in hell my ass is touching that toilet seat....protector or not. [:'(] And Ive been doing this for over20 years. Still healthy. If shes healthy then its not that big a deal to wait 10-20 mins which is what she stated is the length of time. ETA: If I said to Mster that I wanted to change stuff, first he would look at me like I just grew two heads and then he would say that it's not up to me to make that decision. Now at that point, he may or may not listen to me. If he's in the mood, then he may have us sit down and talk about it. That still doesn't mean anything is going to change. He may tell me that I agreed to this life and if I felt it wasn't for me anymore then I was free to leave. This is what I agreed to. I get bored with all kinds of things. I get bored at work because I have to do certain stuff day in, day out. I tell my boss of something different we could do instead and he says no. He likes what we're doing and wants to keep it that way. But why in the hell would I leave just because it's boring when everything else is great? I get bored with some things with Master. Am I gonna leave him for it? No. I'm just gonna continue to do it because that's what he likes. I think I can withstand an hour or two or whatever of boredom. Boredom....really? This is the issue?

LafayetteLady -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (2/28/2014 10:32:21 PM)
I don't think boredom is wholly the issue in this case. We all have things in life we have to do, but done enjoy, ie cleaning the house, paying bills whatever. I think the boredom is a "tipe of the iceberg" kind of thing and there is likely more going on. They are married and maybe she needs to know that his love for her is more important than the dynamic. Maybe she needs more than what he is giving her. Maybe it is just boredome, or plain curiousity, since her question here was what does he get out of the activity. Perhaps she is looking for a better understanding, which is normal human nature, cause and effect. As for the peeing, once again, it doesn't matter if you are healthy or not, it is not something that should regular be happening. Yes, we all have times where we may need to "hold it" for whatever reason, but we all also have a point where holding it becomes a problem (aka the "pee pee dance"). When the point of real urgency comes and elimination is forced to wait, that's when it becomes an issue. For example, I think most of us have, at least once in our lives, have had those mornings where we get to sleep in or just want to stay in bed a little longer. However, we know we need to pee. Still, reluctant to get out of bed, we will try to make the feeling go away so we can sleep a little longer or just stay in bed. Sometimes, we are able to conquer the urge and stay in bed those few extra minutes. Other times, the urge becomes more urgent and we realize we have to get out of bed and go. That's the point where continuing to hold it becomes an issue, becausemost of us from when we were potty trained as children were taught to recognize the earliest feling of having to pee. That first thought of "I need to pee" is rarely an "oh shit, where the hell is the bathroom, I need to go NOW" kind of urgency. (Unless of course you are me, lol), so there is a time frame from first thought to real urgency. Also, the risk is higher because this is the first elimination after sleep. While sleeping our bodies kind of do extra work processing the toxins through the gall bladder and kidneys. This is why some tests require a first morning urine to be done properly. Holding that can be more dangerous because of those extra toxins. Geez, I guess after the kidney failure, I became a bit overly knowledgeable about urinating, lol. Of course everyone's time frame is different, but if someone is going to hold their urine regularly for long periods of time, whether it be due to a relationship dynamic or refusing to use a public accomodation (not that the latter isn't a good reason), you should know what are signs of it becoming a problem, such as less volume when you do go. So while I get that there are still people who think it isn't a problem, now you know that it could become one and some things to be aware of. If you want to continue doing what you are doing, that's up to you. Me! I'm not going to take those kinds of risks since I've had and do have various other things that are enough of a problem.

FieryOpal -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (2/28/2014 11:17:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady I don't think boredom is wholly the issue in this case. We all have things in life we have to do, but done enjoy, ie cleaning the house, paying bills whatever. I think the boredom is a "tipe of the iceberg" kind of thing and there is likely more going on. They are married and maybe she needs to know that his love for her is more important than the dynamic. Maybe she needs more than what he is giving her. Maybe it is just boredome, or plain curiousity, since her question here was what does he get out of the activity. Perhaps she is looking for a better understanding, which is normal human nature, cause and effect. As for the peeing, once again, it doesn't matter if you are healthy or not, it is not something that should regular be happening. Yes, we all have times where we may need to "hold it" for whatever reason, but we all also have a point where holding it becomes a problem (aka the "pee pee dance"). When the point of real urgency comes and elimination is forced to wait, that's when it becomes an issue. For example, I think most of us have, at least once in our lives, have had those mornings where we get to sleep in or just want to stay in bed a little longer. However, we know we need to pee. Still, reluctant to get out of bed, we will try to make the feeling go away so we can sleep a little longer or just stay in bed. Sometimes, we are able to conquer the urge and stay in bed those few extra minutes. Other times, the urge becomes more urgent and we realize we have to get out of bed and go. That's the point where continuing to hold it becomes an issue, becausemost of us from when we were potty trained as children were taught to recognize the earliest feling of having to pee. That first thought of "I need to pee" is rarely an "oh shit, where the hell is the bathroom, I need to go NOW" kind of urgency. (Unless of course you are me, lol), so there is a time frame from first thought to real urgency. Also, the risk is higher because this is the first elimination after sleep. While sleeping our bodies kind of do extra work processing the toxins through the gall bladder and kidneys. This is why some tests require a first morning urine to be done properly. Holding that can be more dangerous because of those extra toxins. Geez, I guess after the kidney failure, I became a bit overly knowledgeable about urinating, lol. Of course everyone's time frame is different, but if someone is going to hold their urine regularly for long periods of time, whether it be due to a relationship dynamic or refusing to use a public accomodation (not that the latter isn't a good reason), you should know what are signs of it becoming a problem, such as less volume when you do go. So while I get that there are still people who think it isn't a problem, now you know that it could become one and some things to be aware of. If you want to continue doing what you are doing, that's up to you. Me! I'm not going to take those kinds of risks since I've had and do have various other things that are enough of a problem. Such an awful experience to have had to endure. You have my sympathies, believe me, because fairly early in my career I was the scheduling coordinator for home health aides. It was a grueling almost all-day affair (including van transport, waiting room time, etc.) for our kidney dialysis clients. This isn't a temporary or transitory medical condition which can be rapidly treated with remedial measures. Much like diabetes, for analogy's sake, this requires a dramatic lifestyle change that could affect you the rest of your life as well as impact your loved ones' lives. It sounds like you're one of the lucky ones, LafayetteLady. Others aren't as fortunate and their condition worsens.

JeffBC -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/1/2014 8:56:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady she has been so conditioned to this so she no longer has the ability to break away, in a sense, she has lost the mental capicity to consent Unlike most, I don't have a moral objection to this, providing she was aware of this fact either prior to the relationship, or during the relationship prior to the conditioning taking hold. I'm not even sure Carol had that option exactly. What I know is that despite the fact that our relationship is currently troubled and our dynamic in tatters I can't "free her". The moment I assert myself she submits. So right now I'm doing my best to not assert myself until we can get some fundamentals in better shape but honestly it's pretty tenuous and that carries it's own problems with it. This whole "consent" thing has never been as clear cut for us as what I read about on BDSM boards. I've never thought Carol had the ability to consent. I thought she had a submissive personality in the presence of a dominant one. By it's very nature the relationship is highly coercive which in most contexts mitigates consent. Or, perhaps, more accurately, she could certainly reach the point of non-consent but that point would be way, way farther than it ought to be. edited to add A strongly submissive personality in the presence of a strongly dominant one certainly always has the legal right to stop consenting. Where this gets muddy is whether or not they have the capability to excercise that right before excessively awful things happen. OP will need to answer that question for herself but the view on these boards... D/s by agreement... is not the only way it happens.

LafayetteLady -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/1/2014 9:24:48 AM)
That's a very good point Jeff, and the one that concerns me the most about some people, both on these boards and in life. I have a friend who is somewhat in service to me (zero sex or kink, just service). I am aware though that he has a lot of trouble saying "no" to almost anything I ask of him. So there are times when we work specifically on that issue; him learning to assert himself and say no to a request. I have never thought of it as lacking the capacity to consent, although it is as good a tterm as any. In a vanilla context, these people would be thought of as "people pleasers," those who are typically sacrificing to please others. Your Carol sounds something like that. "People pleasers" are usually taken advantage of easily (not that you ar doing that's, sounds quite the opposite), because they lack the ability to say no, and some people will take advantage of that, whether i ntentionally or not. I say not always intentionally because I know with this friend, I often have to remind myself that it would be very easy to take advantage and I don't want to do that. Is the OP one of those types? I honestly can't tell from the few posts she made, but it is certainly possible, and I agree that would make it difficult for her to do anything to back away from the situation even if she didn't want it anymore. Much like Stockholm Syndrome, a great deal of conditioning goes on in many M/s situations, and the ability to assert one's self becomes diminished if not fully gone. But then the question becomes, "do they lack the capacity to consent because of this?" On one hand, the answer is yes, because they don't believe they can deny any activity. But on the other, they are adults, regardless of this weakness (and yes it is a weakness) to assert their need.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/1/2014 9:31:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar Unlike most, I don't have a moral objection to this, providing she was aware of this fact either prior to the relationship, or during the relationship prior to the conditioning taking hold. I've never thought Carol had the ability to consent. I thought she had a submissive personality in the presence of a dominant one. By it's very nature the relationship is highly coercive which in most contexts mitigates consent. Which is why I said awareness, not consent. Regardless of relationship status, I have enough Gorean in me to be less concerned about consent than coercion. If Carol cannot refuse you consent, then it's my take she probably be much happier not being required to try. She shouldn't be expected to give consent she can't refuse. What I, on the other hand, do have a problem with is misleading intentions and false representations. If you had gone and taken a person fully capable of refusing consent and 'tricked' them into mental conditioning for the supposed sake of mere kinky role-play, and thus had removed their ability to consent, I'd have an issue. Mainly because at that point you'd be refusing the option of removing consent from a person capable of retracting it, by deliberately not providing them with all the facts they'd need to make a rational decision. I have moral issues with the forced enslavement of those who are free. I don't have much qualm with the enslavement of slaves, especially and particularly not if they were already aware of the fact that such was the goal.

LafayetteLady -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/1/2014 12:10:07 PM)
For most that engage in that type of dynamic, the idea that they can't remove consent is part of the thrill and I doubt most think they will lose the ability psychologically to remove consent if they change their minds. The top of the relationship may not have the intelligence to realize that can happen either. Consent or the ability to make a decision and be self sufficient are part of being an adult. There is a big difference between choosing not to and not being capable of doing something. This makes what Jeff is trying to do with Carol more important and something he should be commending for recognizing. The fantasy may be great but when the fantasy steps in and actually replaces reality (as in losing the ability, not the choice to consent), it does presnet a problem. Ishtar, I realize you have very strong opinions on people are adults and therfore should be left to their own devices as adults, but nothing is ever black and white. I don't know if what Jeff is talking about is the OP's situation, it may not be. But Jeff saw it happeningg in his own relationship and as a responsible dominant is taking measures to. Ring some necessary life skills into the equation. Even if a couple never change their minds regarding their situation, no one lives forever, and if someone is responsible for the well being of another, they have an obligation and duty to make sure that should something happen to them the one in their care has what is needed to carry on with their life making their own decisions.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/1/2014 2:02:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady There is a big difference between choosing not to and not being capable of doing something. This makes what Jeff is trying to do with Carol more important and something he should be commending for recognizing. The fantasy may be great but when the fantasy steps in and actually replaces reality (as in losing the ability, not the choice to consent), it does presnet a problem. But Jeff saw it happeningg in his own relationship and as a responsible dominant is taking measures to. Ring some necessary life skills into the equation. Even if a couple never change their minds regarding their situation, no one lives forever, and if someone is responsible for the well being of another, they have an obligation and duty to make sure that should something happen to them the one in their care has what is needed to carry on with their life making their own decisions. But Carol never lost her capability to consent, she never had it to begin with. As such, for them, fantasy didn't replace reality, because her lack of consent never had anything to do with the M/s relationship as it superseded it. In fact, what he's doing with her right now (artificially not asserting himself because he knows she'll follow him if he does) is more 'fantasy' than anything he's ever wrote about on these boards, though, it being Jeff, I'm sure he's got his reasons. And why would somebody have the responsibility to make sure another adult person is taken care of after their death by imparting them life skills? The desire, sure, but the duty and obligation? If that person came into the relationship lacking the lifeskils to take care of themselves, why would it be the other's responsibility to impart them? If you ask me, the person without life skills can be glad that they can ride with somebody who took care of them all those years, and after they die, they go right back to the place they started before the relationship. A lot of times financially and emotionally better off even. I don't understand how you get from that the other person's obligation and duty to make the person without life skills into a new person. Sure, that may happen, and I would assume that most people in a loving relationship will try to help their other half better themselves along the way if possible, but that's a far cry from claiming it's the more assertive person's duty and obligation to make the less assertive person into somebody new. It's again the slippery slope of forcing people to be somebody they're not, or adopt behaviors not suited for them, just because you deem it into their best interest. In this case, it's not even just the s-type who needs to be forced to become another person for their own protection, there is not an added 'duty and obligation' to the D-type to facilitate that transformation, even if it goes against their own personality. Are you suggesting that people entering into relationship should do so under the premise that they will 'fix' the other person and create them anew in the image of what they think a responsible adult looks like? As much as I tend to feel that certain peoples are natural followers, and that taking advantage of that fact by leading them in directions they may not want go isn't a morally gray area, I'm rather uncomfortable with this idea of forcefully saving people from themselves -especially in areas where they do actively make decisions- because you happen to think you know it's in their own best interest.

LadyConstanze -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/1/2014 2:25:50 PM)
I think you are projecting a lot of you into that, you get off on the Gorean thing and you're reasonably intelligent and have comment sense, a lot of people are lacking several IQ points and common sense, they get told stuff, get roped into abusive relationships and don't know any better, I do have a bit of a problem with that. I also remember an earlier conversation where you mentioned that almost everything turns you on, that's awesome but it's quite the exception. Then the additional problem that the law doesn't really recognize consent, take your situation for an example, you gave consent to be shocked with a cattle prod, for you it's no different than going snowboarding, now should you (what I don''t hope) have a heart attack, you having given consent won't change diddly squat, legally you can't give consent. This whole thing that we pretend we are Gorean or whatever, shadow boxing really, reminds me all about the OWK and them claiming they are a sovereign state. I loved the idea, I bit like a very elaborate BDSM Disney Land, but in case anybody would have died there, do you think it would have been the OWK police investigating it? I doubt that very much. Additionally, when relationships end, they don't always end peacefully, emotions fly and dirty laundry gets washed in public, it's simply stuff people entering into any BDSM relationship have to remember, as shit doesn't only can happen, it happens frequently and to say "it shouldn't be like this" doesn't stop anything.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/1/2014 2:27:58 PM)
As an additional thought: LL, in the essence of your argument it's becomes clear that what you personally want to do is go on a crusade to attempt to save every person in the world from the chance of having to endure a life -or life events- which just plainly sucks and are unfair. The thing is, you cannot do that. You cannot save everybody from themselves. You cannot put forwards one singular moral ideal that will be good for everybody. Every 'greater good' rule and/or ideal you can come up with will hurt somebody. Now if you want to take Kant's position and go the route of utilitarianism (where the greatest good is defined as that which maximizing happiness and reducing suffering for the greatest amount of people) then I understand, but we'll have to perpetually agree to disagree, because I consider utilitarianism is an amoral philosophy. So given that, no matter what good you intend to do to people 'for their own best interest', you will always end up hurting a subset of the people you're trying to help in the process, I feel that it's important to emphasis freedom before we emphasis the 'greater good'. If you start from the assumption that people are free to make their own decisions and mistakes, even in situations they may not be qualified in to make those decisions and mistakes; and then subsequent allow them to deal with the consequences in the way they deem fit, then yes, life will still suck for some people. And people will still end up doing retarded things getting themselves into trouble. But the difference will be is that the negative they're subjected to in their life will be negative of their own making, instead of something somebody else brought into their life by force in an attempt to make it better. That may not seem better, and it may seem a trivial difference, but in the end I believe people are always better off suffering their own foolishness than the foolishness of another. Your millage may vary on that.

kalikshama -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/1/2014 2:33:42 PM)
I don't see LL on a crusade; I see her trying to convey her POV, same as you :)

UllrsIshtar -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/1/2014 2:46:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze I think you are projecting a lot of you into that, you get off on the Gorean thing and you're reasonably intelligent and have comment sense, a lot of people are lacking several IQ points and common sense, they get told stuff, get roped into abusive relationships and don't know any better, I do have a bit of a problem with that. Which is why I emphasized that what I consider more important than consent is to be awareness. A person capable of withdrawing consent shouldn't be roped into a roped into a relationship under false pretenses and be made to loose consent without being aware of the possibility. To do so is to deny them the freedom to make their own choice, by deliberately withholding facts from them. I consider somebody doing that to another person blatantly immoral. At the same time, I still don't agree that therefore we should prohibit people to enter into relationships where they may loose consent capability to protect them for their own good. Nor do I feel that it's a person's duty and obligation to impart consent capability on a person who came into the relationships without the capability to withdraw consent. Would it be a joyous thing to teach somebody life skills they didn't have so that they may better take care of themselves after you're gone than before they met you? Of course. Does that make it a duty an obligation to do so? HELL no! quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze I also remember an earlier conversation where you mentioned that almost everything turns you on, that's awesome but it's quite the exception. There must be a miscommunications somewhere, because that's not entirely correct (man I wish it was [:D]). For future reference: nearly everything (as in, I haven't found any glaring exceptions) has the capability to turn me on if it's accompanied with the forceful command of the right male. Let me assure you that me by myself on the street accidentally stepping in dog poop ain't a turn on, and I'm sorry if I said anything in a way that would give you the impression that it was. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze Then the additional problem that the law doesn't really recognize consent, take your situation for an example, you gave consent to be shocked with a cattle prod, for you it's no different than going snowboarding, now should you (what I don''t hope) have a heart attack, you having given consent won't change diddly squat, legally you can't give consent. Of course, but so far the last two pages of this debate have centered around morality, not legality. Those two rarely overlap these days anyways. Morally I'd say a person has a right to consent to having their left arm cut of, and if and when they give such consent, the other person would have the moral prerogative to actually cut of the consenter's arm. In fact, we recognize this as true by not prosecuting doctors who amputate limbs for medically necessary reasons. Legally, and practically, I think that -barring medical necessity- any person willing to cut off another person's arm just because they consented probably shows clear sign of depressive and self-destructive behavior, because they're so blatantly willing to refuse to look out for their own welfare by considering the legal consequences of such an act. At the same time, while I recognize that the society I live in legally fundamentally does not acknowledge people's rights to choose what to do with their own body, and that it would therefore be stupid for me to ignore that fact, I can't say I particularly agree with it. I've long proposed that any D-type willing to commit just about any physical BDSM act with any consenting sub is displaying a deep lack of care about risks that 'normal' people wouldn't dream of taking.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/1/2014 2:50:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama I don't see LL on a crusade; I see her trying to convey her POV, same as you :) I meant 'crusade' as in that she, morally, is on a mission to make the world a better place by saving people from themselves, whether they want to be saved or not. So I'm not meaning that she's necessarily on a crusade within this debate -she's not, we're just arguing. Her 'crusade' flows from her moral system that dictates that people should not be allowed to make certain (not all) choices she believes aren't good for them.

LadyConstanze -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/1/2014 3:13:29 PM)
I remember years and years ago that cannibalism thing, I honestly had no problem with it, as I believe in free choice and if both people are aware and able to consent, but I don't like too many people who aren't quite able falling by the wayside, if that makes sense. So apart from dog poop, unless a forceful male tells you to step into it, stuff excites you, which is pretty fortunate, but others might need a bit more or different stuff (forceful males trying to boss me around, I hope somebody else cleans up the blood...) My thing is, there are a hell lot of things I'd love to do, and a lot of people willing to do them with me, but some risks I'm just not willing to take, for several reasons, if I'd kill somebody, I wouldn't want to live with myself, and the idea of spending time in prison doesn't appeal (even without the guilt trip)

littlewonder -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/1/2014 9:15:10 PM)
I'm of the opinion that adults should be allowed to do whatever the hell they please without outside influence. But just be aware there are consequences to all actions....good or bad. The way I see it, it cleans out the gene pool. Let adults be. I don't want someone saving me from myself. So I won't try to save someone else. Hell, my mom is in the hospital right now and we've all told her that if she doesn't change her ways she's going to be dead in a year. But ya know what? I told my sister that if she doesn't want to listen then that's on her, not me. Sure I'd like to save her but she's and adult. Actions = consequences.

JeffBC -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/1/2014 10:12:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady I have never thought of it as lacking the capacity to consent, although it is as good a tterm as any. In a vanilla context, these people would be thought of as "people pleasers," those who are typically sacrificing to please others. Your Carol sounds something like that. "People pleasers" are usually taken advantage of easily (not that you ar doing that's, sounds quite the opposite), because they lack the ability to say no, and some people will take advantage of that, whether i ntentionally or not. I say not always intentionally because I know with this friend, I often have to remind myself that it would be very easy to take advantage and I don't want to do that. This is it exactly. Carol's own description for herself is that she "prefers to defer" which sums it up nicely. In a tight relationship with a strongly dominant personality that preference becomes ... well ... strong but still not unlimited. I can easily speculate on suitably horrific commands that she'd refuse outright. Interestingly Carol isn't readily taken advantage of... to much. She's got pretty good asshat radar and just ejects such people from her life before it gets too far. quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar In fact, what he's doing with her right now (artificially not asserting himself because he knows she'll follow him if he does) is more 'fantasy' than anything he's ever wrote about on these boards, though, it being Jeff, I'm sure he's got his reasons. LOL, yeah you nailed it. And yes, your point about "awareness" is well taken.

kiwisub12 -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/2/2014 12:29:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama 2. Her having to hold urine, which we know can cause UTIs and have other negative health consequences Ya know, I've been in the medical profession for 30-odd years, and urological surgery for 7 or 8 years, and I have never heard that not peeing when you want to causes UTI's. Not completely emptying your bladder consistently may contribute to the incidence of UTI's, but waiting to pee isn't going to give you a UTI. and if you're like me, if someone wants me to wait too long, I'm going to pee on your carpet, so ha ha, take that! as for waiting to pee first thing in the day is worse for you because of extra toxins - the bladder doesn't absorb, so that isn't an issue.

LadyConstanze -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/2/2014 1:06:51 PM)
Seriously? I can hold out for quite a while, but if I do so (in a traffic jam, no toilet or bushes near), I will have a UTI instead of the embarrassment of peeing my pants. Talk to any urologist, holding the urine for too long can cause it to back up into your kidneys, additionally you are also stretching your bladder and your bladder can become a nice breeding ground for bacteria, since you're in the medical profession, you know the causality between bacteria and infection. The more often you do it, the worse it is for you UT.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625