RE: TPE without the connection?

RE: TPE without the connection? (Full Version)

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

Message

GoddessManko -> RE: TPE without the connection? (8/6/2014 6:26:16 PM)
Labor laws have nothing to do with consensual servitude. I know of a local slave who is eager to be "pimped out" whatever that mans and was according to him sold to other D's for amusement. His claims seem to be truthful based on our conversation and his timelines etc. How other D's conduct their business is not my concern as long as the sub is compliant and this sub was more than compliant to be my slut, he was eager. His behaviors also suggest that he experienced very extreme forms of domming and bdsm quite young as he alluded to due to his inclination to engage in risky behaviors without regard for himself. Domestic servitude seems quite tame in comparison to a sub offering to allow me to castrate him during our first conversation. Service subs enjoy what they do and we know financial domming is a fetish because the findommes outnumber us lifestyle D's by far.

DesFIP -> RE: TPE without the connection? (8/6/2014 6:38:00 PM)
Well no, Manko. Labor laws don't apply to illegal acts. So drug dealers can't complain that their source doesn't pay overtime. Same for a person wanting to be prostituted. It isn't labor relations you need to worry about here, it's the long arm of the law.

GoddessManko -> RE: TPE without the connection? (8/6/2014 7:55:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Well no, Manko. Labor laws don't apply to illegal acts. So drug dealers can't complain that their source doesn't pay overtime. Same for a person wanting to be prostituted. It isn't labor relations you need to worry about here, it's the long arm of the law. Right, labor laws DO NOT APPLY to drug dealing. Categorically it would be criminalized under a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONTEXT. Again, what D's do with their subs do not concern me as long as there is compliance on both sides. And that was just an example, I actually gave TWO examples, the eager-to-be-castrated sub was an engineer.. I'm not losing sleep over it. And I don't have to give a damn about a sub wanting to be prostituted unless I accepted such an offer, lmao. You seem to have an issue with CONTEXT on both counts.

FieryOpal -> RE: TPE without the connection? (8/6/2014 10:45:58 PM)
@BecomingV, it's at times like these when I wish we had a "Like" button, because not only was your post informative and thought-provoking, but it helped me to mentally sift through a few situations I had encountered which hadn't made sense at the time. [sm=applause.gif] @cloudboy, you crack me up. (You might have intended to be completely serious, but I thought I'd pass that along.) [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal We are both Dominants. This does not mean we should look the other way when other Dominants come posting at least once a month with complaints about how they can't find any "real" live-in slaves (often calling them fakes and time wasters, etc.) for instant 24/7 TPE free maid service and unpaid labor. If this has anything to do with the OP or anything I've ever said I sure don't see what, care to explain what's going on in your head? You may not have read the original, unrevised profile. What I had placed in quotation marks was taken verbatim. I have no dog in this fight, but you have expressed your disapproval of F/m financial domination, specifically with fin-Dommes. You are certainly entitled to express your opinion. However, IF you do not view other forms of financial domination or inequality/one-sidedness in the quid-pro-quo process as being unfair and/or exploitative, then that strikes me as bordering on hypocrisy (which is unlike you), expressly: -- slave provides services to contribute to Dominant's household. (Pre-revised profile stated she is seeking only one male slave now to be kept in chastity, no sexual access to female slaves is allowed, nor they to him) -- Dominant specifies BDSM play is NOT on the table. slave must accept there is already a Dom who lives there (per pre-revised profile). -- Please not that her stipulation that "Everyone in the household must work and contribute financially to the household," contains the word "contribute financially." They must work at paid jobs and bring in money, in addition to providing their slave services and helping to "care for farm animals." No bartering for BDSM play, no sexual activities allowed among slaves. Perhaps you didn't mean that you couldn't see anything wrong with this picture, but that's how I took your questioning of "Huh? I missed something, when did this become unreasonable?" I then presented, in satirical form (in order for OP to not perceive my making a personal attack for offering basically nothing in exchange for servitude, which she did anyway) my response to your query. In other matters, you have been consistent in your postings. Our disconnect has to do with your assuming this had to do with an intimate D/s relationship dynamic (whether mono or true poly, such as what KofM has). You were just going by the opening post, evidently, and not by what was actually spelled out in OP's original profile. Therein lies the difference as to what was/is going on in both of our heads. [&:]

GotSteel -> RE: TPE without the connection? (8/7/2014 6:15:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal Our disconnect has to do with your assuming this had to do with an intimate D/s relationship dynamic (whether mono or true poly, such as what KofM has). You were just going by the opening post, evidently, and not by what was actually spelled out in OP's original profile. Therein lies the difference as to what was/is going on in both of our heads. [&:] I don't know if I read the same older version of the profile you did, but I certainly read a version which contained: "Everyone in the household must work and contribute financially to the household,". I see that the financial part could be something exploitative but I haven't confirmed that it isn't just an explanation that anybody living with them needs to pay their share of the expenses. You've stated that "Dominant specifies BDSM play is NOT on the table." I don't recall reading anything actually equivalent to that in the older profile I saw. I'm not even sure how that would work as objectification and chastity are forms of BDSM play. Are you by any chance extrapolating that part from something that could have a different interpretation?

FieryOpal -> RE: TPE without the connection? (8/7/2014 7:31:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel I don't know if I read the same older version of the profile you did, but I certainly read a version which contained: "Everyone in the household must work and contribute financially to the household,". I see that the financial part could be something exploitative but I haven't confirmed that it isn't just an explanation that anybody living with them needs to pay their share of the expenses. You've stated that "Dominant specifies BDSM play is NOT on the table." I don't recall reading anything actually equivalent to that in the older profile I saw. I'm not even sure how that would work as objectification and chastity are forms of BDSM play. Are you by any chance extrapolating that part from something that could have a different interpretation? Now I wish I would have saved the original into Notebook, but that would have been an unusual move on my part since I normally wouldn't bother to go to the trouble. I have to rely on memory. OP had started off specifying she was only looking for one male slave TPE at present, who would be kept in chastity, and would be required to work around the house and provide other (non-sexual) services. Let me point out GS, that she did not say in a chastity device, and "chastity" in general is more of a lifestyle than it is BDSM play. (I wasn't sure, but I took this to mean "chaste" as in no sex was allowed because she stipulated that the female slaves could not have sex with him either.) Then the statement about working [a job] and contributing financially. Again, I cannot infer this means helping to sell fruit & vegetables and baked pies at a roadside stand to generate income; that would be even more presumptuous. Another paragraph down, I believe was the mandatory reference to caring for farm animals with a caveat that this did NOT mean pet play or words to that effect. The way she has it worded now is: "I am...not a 'let me fulfill your fantasy fetish' [Domme]. I am not looking for sessions," If I'm not mistaken, the way she had it worded before prohibited the male slave to expect any of his fantasy fetishes or kinks to be fulfilled, and that she wasn't into 'BDSM sessions,' but that could have been ambiguous. Btw, sexual objectification would be BDSM play. I suppose one could argue that ANY form of objectification (human furniture) is play, but OP opens her post expressing distaste with the idea of a slave candidate "who wants to be only objectified" with "more of a simple servitude." Unclear whether that would be sexual or non-sexual. The more I think of it, the more I believe what OP posted here is closer to what she is really looking for, and that it was her original profile which was confusing (which she didn't realize how it conveyed the wrong impression), and not the other way around.

GoddessManko -> RE: TPE without the connection? (8/7/2014 7:57:00 AM)
Fast reply: Perhaps the OP would like to connect with this fellow. He seems quintessential really. Remembered someone seeking a slave farm couple months ago. Might be a great match. http://www.collarchat.com/m_4702528/mpage_1/key_FARM%252CSLAVE/tm.htm#4703335

CloakedProtector -> RE: TPE without the connection? (8/7/2014 2:33:17 PM)
GoddessManko about: "Labor laws have nothing to do with consensual servitude. " Why are you writing that to me? I didn't write about labor laws. I just referred to earlier posts dwelling about labor laws, insurance covering and other stuff OP didn't ask for. Of course Labor laws have nothing to do with consensual servitude.

BecomingV -> RE: TPE without the connection? (8/7/2014 3:47:20 PM)
Thanks, FieryOpal I should add that one of the common things "the object" says they gain is amazing subspace. A mummy / plant in the corner - she did both - told me that immobilization with mild compression is like a full-body hug. I'm a bit on the energetic side, myself, so it sounds like torture, to me. LOL But, for her, this was as stress-relieving as a full-body massage. The total vulnerability / total control power exchange was said to enhance sexual sensitivity and response - although, not all of her "owners" participated beyond the objectification scene. When the relationship was also sexual, this type of play just made it like - as she put it - fireworks.

GotSteel -> RE: TPE without the connection? (8/7/2014 4:30:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal Now I wish I would have saved the original into Notebook, but that would have been an unusual move on my part since I normally wouldn't bother to go to the trouble. I have to rely on memory. I hear that, I'm in the same boat. quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal OP had started off specifying she was only looking for one male slave TPE at present, who would be kept in chastity, and would be required to work around the house and provide other (non-sexual) services. Let me point out GS, that she did not say in a chastity device, and "chastity" in general is more of a lifestyle than it is BDSM play. (I wasn't sure, but I took this to mean "chaste" as in no sex was allowed because she stipulated that the female slaves could not have sex with him either.) As somebody into the chastity fetish I can say that's a fairly typical phrasing for the fetish and "kept in" is not a phrasing I've ever heard someone use to express an expectation of abstinence. Furthermore if you'll recall it didn't say that no sex was allowed with the female slaves, it said that no "unauthorized" sex was allowed which isn't actually the same thing. quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal Then the statement about working [a job] and contributing financially. Again, I cannot infer this means helping to sell fruit & vegetables and baked pies at a roadside stand to generate income; that would be even more presumptuous. Another paragraph down, I believe was the mandatory reference to caring for farm animals with a caveat that this did NOT mean pet play or words to that effect. As we talked about an uncharitable reading of that section easily makes it seem nefarious whereas a charitable reading of that section makes it sound like what numerous lifestyle mistresses around here have said, that a male slave can't reasonably expect to sit around naked having his kinks tickled while the Mistress pays to feed, house and care for him. quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal The way she has it worded now is: "I am...not a 'let me fulfill your fantasy fetish' [Domme]. I am not looking for sessions," If I'm not mistaken, the way she had it worded before prohibited the male slave to expect any of his fantasy fetishes or kinks to be fulfilled, and that she wasn't into 'BDSM sessions,' but that could have been ambiguous. She used the word "bargain" or "bargaining", on this too I can see how you got there but a more charitable interpretation would be something along the lines of: no topping from the bottom. Which from what I've heard about how the chastity fetish works with the other gender.....well there are stereotypical reasons for such a disclaimer. quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal Btw, sexual objectification would be BDSM play. I suppose one could argue that ANY form of objectification (human furniture) is play, but OP opens her post expressing distaste with the idea of a slave candidate "who wants to be only objectified" with "more of a simple servitude." Unclear whether that would be sexual or non-sexual. The more I think of it, the more I believe what OP posted here is closer to what she is really looking for, and that it was her original profile which was confusing (which she didn't realize how it conveyed the wrong impression), and not the other way around. That's the thing I've found about new posters, far too often they don't do a perfect job expressing themselves on their first try. Heck my girl with her minor in english didn't manage to be crystal clear enough to keep from being heckled off the site on her first try. An incident which was an object lesson to me that if we hunt for the worst in each other hard enough we're bound to find it whether or not it's actually there. As such I try to give people (especially new posters) the benefit of the doubt and withhold the tar and feathering until after I've confirmed that the interpretation by which they're unethical is the correct one.

FieryOpal -> RE: TPE without the connection? (8/7/2014 10:24:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel As somebody into the chastity fetish I can say that's a fairly typical phrasing for the fetish and "kept in" is not a phrasing I've ever heard someone use to express an expectation of abstinence. Furthermore if you'll recall it didn't say that no sex was allowed with the female slaves, it said that no "unauthorized" sex was allowed which isn't actually the same thing. That's right, you do keep your girl in a chastity belt. I've never done the chastity cage-device thing, so I will defer to you in this area. There's a well-known Chastity Domme on the boards who does have chastity slaves she keeps as non-sexual service slaves, so I know for a fact (second-hand) that abstinence+chastity is not unheard of. But I would agree that in most cases, there would not be an expectation of total celibacy. And yes, the "unauthorized physical contact" part does make a difference, as you noted. My experience is limited to orgasm control & (delayed-)denial, T&D/edging, stuff along those lines. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel As we talked about an uncharitable reading of that section easily makes it seem nefarious whereas a charitable reading of that section makes it sound like what numerous lifestyle mistresses around here have said, that a male slave can't reasonably expect to sit around naked having his kinks tickled while the Mistress pays to feed, house and care for him. This is true, and since I'm such a stickler for fully informed consent, SSC, and personal accountability, I should take this opportunity to apologize to the OP for any misunderstandings and jumping to conclusions, nothing personal. There are Dominants who use the term "lifestyle" as a catch-all, but by the same token, someone else might claim that since I am not open about my D/s lifestyle, that I'm not really a lifestyle Domme. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel She used the word "bargain" or "bargaining", on this too I can see how you got there but a more charitable interpretation would be something along the lines of: no topping from the bottom. Which from what I've heard about how the chastity fetish works with the other gender.....well there are stereotypical reasons for such a disclaimer. I must have missed that because I don't remember the word 'bargain' or 'bargaining' anywhere. Btw, your mentioning Topping from the bottom brings to mind some PM exchanges I've had recently where I was describing my D/s style, specifically when it came to the area of discipline & correction, and was summarily accused of taking a "my way or the highway" approach. [8\|] quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel That's the thing I've found about new posters, far too often they don't do a perfect job expressing themselves on their first try.... Ya think maybe I'm getting cynical in my old(er) age? [8D] Point taken. And here I was thinking I was getting too soft and fluffy-bunnyish. (I was actually called that by a sub friend not long ago; he joked that he didn't fall for my fluffy-bunny act. [;)] )

LadyPact -> RE: TPE without the connection? (8/9/2014 7:46:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LauqeSderdnik I am an experienced lifestyle Domme. I was recently contacted by a potential slave who is looking for a LTR but who wants to be only objectified, not a member of a "relationship." I have always run my TPE relationships like a relationship....both halves of a whole. He is looking for more of a simple servitude, but I am not sure how that would work long term. I feel like it would feel so..empty. I feel like if I just wanted just an objectified slave, I might as well hire a maid. What are your thoughts? Well, I've done it... Frankly, I would tell you that, if you followed through, it would be a terribly empty experience. If given the opportunity, I would never short change myself, again. Can you do it? Yes. You can breathe in and out, too and live on bread and water. Do you want that? The bare minimum? The stuff that doesn't really satisfy you? I did that for a very long time. It was horrible in comparison. I was much happier with being "in love" with a submissive man. Best experience of My life.

DesFIP -> RE: TPE without the connection? (8/10/2014 2:10:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko Again, what D's do with their subs do not concern me as long as there is compliance on both sides. And that was just an example, I actually gave TWO examples, the eager-to-be-castrated sub was an engineer.. I'm not losing sleep over it. And I don't have to give a damn about a sub wanting to be prostituted unless I accepted such an offer, lmao. You seem to have an issue with CONTEXT on both counts. Not at all. You claimed that as long as people consent, they don't need to worry about any outside interference. I pointed out that you were wrong, and predictably, you were unable to handle any disagreement. Now, ignoring Manko, I'd like to address mummification/bondage as being objectification. I'm not sure why V thinks these kinds of play are automatically objectifying. Hell, why not say someone getting whipped is being objectified? I get mummified on occasion and I don't feel like any object. Nor does The Man view me as one. For us, it's just another form of sensation play, another form of bondage.

BecomingV -> RE: TPE without the connection? (8/10/2014 3:09:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP ...I'd like to address mummification/bondage as being objectification. I'm not sure why V thinks these kinds of play are automatically objectifying. Hell, why not say someone getting whipped is being objectified? I get mummified on occasion and I don't feel like any object. Nor does The Man view me as one. For us, it's just another form of sensation play, another form of bondage. I don't think that mummification is automatically objectification play and that's not what I wrote. I'd have to agree with the feedback that you are struggling with context. If you re-read what I wrote and STILL can't see what the words mean BEYOND how they relate to you, personally, then you've identified the problem.

GoddessManko -> RE: TPE without the connection? (8/11/2014 6:17:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Not at all. You claimed that as long as people consent, they don't need to worry about any outside interference. I pointed out that you were wrong, and predictably, you were unable to handle any disagreement. Now, ignoring Manko, I'd like to address mummification/bondage as being objectification. I'm not sure why V thinks these kinds of play are automatically objectifying. Hell, why not say someone getting whipped is being objectified? I get mummified on occasion and I don't feel like any object. Nor does The Man view me as one. For us, it's just another form of sensation play, another form of bondage. OK, again, pay attention. My issue was context. At no time did I ever state "NO ONE CAN INTERFERE WITH WHAT A D DOES WITH SAID SUB". That would be illogical and I don't fare well with illogic. Read properly before making false assertions. I am pretty succinct on my position on things. And yes, ignore if you cannot read things coherently. Good start. quote: "Labor laws have nothing to do with consensual servitude. " Why are you writing that to me? I didn't write about labor laws. I just referred to earlier posts dwelling about labor laws, insurance covering and other stuff OP didn't ask for. Of course Labor laws have nothing to do with consensual servitude. I was not replying to you. I usually quote people when replying, you just happened to be the previous poster. I should have typed "Fast Reply" since you're unfamiliar with the way I respond on the forums, my bad. :)

CloakedProtector -> RE: TPE without the connection? (8/12/2014 2:13:17 PM)
DesFIP, I tend to agree with that argument on mummification and bondage not being objectification. It does of course say nowhere that one cannot use attributes in objectification and making someone pose as a statue, serve as table etc doesn't exclude that additionally some ropes are used. One could argue about those ones, but on that basis including "bondage" as such into objectification seem a step to far. As for mummification I think it is a level easier. It is clearly immobilisation and belongs with vacuum and other such plays. One could again argue that it is possible to wrap a subject while in the position of a statue or table but if we keep follow that reasoning then candle wax play is also objectification because nobody says the subject cannot be in a table position while the wax is poured after which the table is used.

BecomingV -> RE: TPE without the connection? (8/12/2014 9:50:33 PM)
Fast Reply It becomes obvious when a poster isn't well-read or well-informed on a specific kink. For example, mummification is an extreme example of objectification. However, does it then follow that everyone who plays with mummification is expressing an objectification kink? I'd say, "No." There are variations on kinks and fetishes. And, as anyone who is into Topping or sadism knows, an action does not have an inherent, automatic meaning. So, in vanilla life, when you hit a partner to alleviate your stress, it's abuse. In BDSM, where people negotiate, set boundaries and give or gain consent, and then they hit their partner to alleviate their stress, it's sharing. So, it's accurate to say, "When I am mummified, I'm experiencing (fill in the kink)." But to then say that because this is how you use it, therefore when others say it's something different to them, is to make a false assumption. A more productive response might be to express what it is to you, and then to show some interest in how another person is experiencing "it." You know, in general.

CloakedProtector -> RE: TPE without the connection? (8/14/2014 2:02:14 PM)
BecommingV, No, qualification of the discipline is not based on ones use or the feeling experienced with that use by the subject. Qualifying mummification as objectification because the filled in part of "When I am mummified, I'm experiencing (fill in the kink)." would rank mummifications in many BDSM disciplines as many could fill it in differently. The BDSM discipline is 'immobilization' , like with a vacuum bed or other means. That the subject feels objectified, terrified, petrified, helpless or aroused by being mummified does not re-qualify mummification's discipline type. It becomes obvious when a poster think he/she is well-read or well-informed on a specific kink but actually isn't. But I am sure you'll provide some links to give those who want to catch up with you a chance to get well-read.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02