RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously?

RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (Full Version)

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

Message

marieToo -> RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (8/1/2006 7:30:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO Well, I read his answer again. And I thought it was educatonal and an attempt to demystify that:People have much inner processing going on that may draw them to a particular bdsm role, regardless of whether some (or any) of it can be logically explained as due to past experiences (or due to whatever). And that there isn't anything wrong with that, because it's a natural thing for many, and people shouldn't feel they need to shun it, or avoid it, due to cultural pre-conditioning, when actually the reality is that our basic inner selves are much more primal in motivation. Why is that something to be ashamed of? That is what I got out of it (in part) anyway. Wow. The silence here is deafening. How come nobody is saying anything? Or maybe I am just a compulsive chatterbox (in which case, I will be quiet so others can talk). Actually I will do that anyway. I am just curious why nobody else has opinions on this. Or agrees, or disagrees, or anything? I am thinking it's just not possible that nobody* has opinions. Then again, peaceful has its charms...[:D] - Susan I dont think there is "shame" in any of it, as long as no one is being taken advantage of in a way that is going to leave them damaged. This is the part that concerns me. Submissives being convinced that they are somehow divine and meant to live their lives as slaves....I mean slaves. After a while you're fucked. You cant get out, you dont believe you can get out. You dont want to get out. Its just dangerous. Your life as you know it is over. And people havent a clue how serious it is. It agitates me how easily the word slave is thrown around by those who have no clue that this shit goes on to an extent that most have never and will never understand.

nefertari -> RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (8/1/2006 7:34:51 PM)
SusanofO: Exactly. I tend to be an over-analytical person myself. One of the things that I love about BDSM (for me) is that I don't care why; I just do.

Homestead -> RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (8/1/2006 7:35:14 PM)
I understand that it can mean condtioned dependence to the point of not even being able to think of leaving marie. And I know exactly how to do it. It's not something to be taken as a romantic game. Which is why I cosnsistently rain on the parades of women with this fantasy attitude. I don't care if they think I'm an armonatic bastard. I want them to put down the rose colored glasses before it's too damned late. There are sharks out there-and they are very good at hiding thier real natures.

SusanofO -> RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (8/1/2006 7:44:21 PM)
marie: I agree there are snakes and lizards and real monsters out there. But I'd like to think (and hope) I'd never become involved with someone I truly could not trust, who didn't have my general good welfare at heart. I know sometimes I feel compelled to answer threads from girls here who seem to be in really bad situations, who are convinced they need to stay. But I have to say, the men in these situations don't seem to me like real honest-to-God Masters (of anything, least of all themsleves). But - that is not what is referred to in this thread. But I know what you mean about wanting to protect people sometimes. There was one thread this morning, from a gal who'd been in a truly abusive relationship with a so-called Master and was obviously wanting to leave, but needed a little nudge. Well, the guy in her situation seemed to have completely ignored being Masterly in any sense of the word, had broken his part of any implied contract, and she felt guilty about wanting to leave. Fortunately, she got about 2-3 pages of support, and maybe that was all she needed. Maybe she will leave. There is a distinct difference, to me, between a Master and a posuer. To me, that difference is someone who has my welfare good at heart, vs. someone who has no or little regard for that. *Which, to me, means that if it comes down to a choice for someone calling themsleves a Master, between doing something that is going to irrevocably harm me, or satisfy their own needs, they choose my welfare over* their needs. I do think those types of Masters really can own someone, body, mind and soul, as a slave, and I don't have any problem with that, no matter how out-of-balance such a relationship might seem to anyone else. I think there are very likely some very trustworthy Masterly souls out there (and I know you seem to probably think so, do too). Fortunately, I credit myself with enough basically good gut instincts for self-preservation from the outset, to be able to discern the difference between the two (I truly do, un-humble as that might sound. I truly think I have little ego, but do have plenty of self-esteem). Unfortunately, not everyone is that lucky, and the ruins are spread here at CM for all to see, every day. And, I pray that does not sound in any way self-congratulatory, or holier-than-anything. It's not meant to sound that way. -Susan

marieToo -> RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (8/1/2006 8:13:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO marie: I agree there are snakes and lizards and real monsters out there. But I'd like to think (and hope) I'd never become involved with someone I truly could not trust, who didn't have my general good welfare at heart. I know sometimes I feel compelled to answer threads from girls here who seem to be in really bad situations, who are convinced they need to stay. But I have to say, the men in these situations don't seem to me like real honest-to-God Masters (of anything, least of all themsleves). But - that is not what is referred to in this thread. But I know what you mean about wanting to protect people sometimes. There was one thread this morning, from a gal who'd been in a truly abusive relationship with a so-called Master and was obviously wanting to leave, but needed a little nudge. Well, the guy in her situation seemed to have completely ignored being Masterly in any sense of the word, had broken his part of any implied contract, and she felt guilty about wanting to leave. Fortunately, she got about 2-3 pages of support, and maybe that was all she needed. Maybe she willl leave. There is a distinct difference, to me between a Master and a posuer. To me, that difference is someone who has my welfare at heart. I do think those Masters really can own someone, body, mind and soul, as a slave, and don't have a problem with that.Because I think there are some very trustworthy Master types out there (and I know you seem to probably think so, do too). Fortunately, I credit myself with enough basically good gut instincts for self-preservation from the get-go to be able to discern the difference (I truly do, un-humble as that might sound. I truly think I have little ego, but do have plenty of self-esteem). Unfortunately, not everyone is that lucky, and the ruins are spread here at CM for all to see, every day.And, I pray that does not sound in any way self-congratulatory, or holier-than-anything. It's not meant to sound that way. -Susan I understand all you said, Susan. And I agree. Yes, there are predators everywhere and of course we avoid them when we recognize it. But I am talking about the difference between having a lover and having an owner. Clearly the word slave is used differently by everyone. And I have found that most people use the term slave as it applies in their 'love affair' or 'romance'. Im not entering into an area where we argue what a slave is. There is a huge difference between people who live their lives in slavery as opposed to someone who considers him/herself a slave to their lover or their spouse.

KnightofMists -> RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (8/1/2006 8:22:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marksl Does anyone view this as all a game or is it just me. I have tried to see the deep meaningfull zen like qualities some people see in bdsm but i am at a loss. Instead i see manipluation child like arrogance but most of all fantasy. Somehow if you learn about bdsm buy a whip you are a Dom/me a superior human being incapable to listen to anyone else. If your a sub its hard to reply as your always on your knees. Sure its sterotypes but is this all it is? Now before hit me with the deep spiritual ramblings on what bdsm should be. Lets be realistic its based in sexual context right. We all do this to get our rocks off. Pretending this is more than it is i want to learn so one day i can say yeah like a come down from ectasy i touched a bdsm god i felt the zen or is all that bullshit? mmmmmmm are you even interested in an answer that doesn't support your own view..... somehow I think responding to you would be a waste of time.

SusanofO -> RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (8/1/2006 8:25:51 PM)
marie: I agree with you, there is a difference, and the term slave is used differently by many here. I do think either way of life is a legitimate choice, for those who choose to live in those relationships. Because they are the ones, ultimately, who have to live in them. I do think people in genuine, conventional Master-slave relationships such as amayos describes, do (or can) feel genuine love for their Masters, and are many times in return loved back by those Masters, but not in a more conventional way that might ncessarily be understood by some (maybe by many) people. And - if they are not, well, they've chosen it for themselves, for whatever reason. For the ones who seem to not have chosen wisely, or cannnot seem to escape what seems (or is) truly abusive, I simply pray for them. - Susan

marieToo -> RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (8/1/2006 8:32:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO marie: I agree with you, there is a difference, and the term slave is used differently by many here. I do think either way of life is a legitimate choice, for those who choose to live in those relationships. Because they are the ones, ultmately, who have to live in them. I do think people in genuine, conventional Master-slave relationships such as amayos describes, do (or can) feel genuine love for their Masters, and are many times loved in return loved back by those Masters, but not in a more conventional way that might ncessarily be understood by some (maybe by many) people. And - if they are not, well, they've chosen it for themselves, for whatever reason. For the ones who seem to not have chosen wisely, or cannnot seem to escape what seems (or is) truly abusive, I simply pray for them. - Susan Yes, Susan. I agree with this.

SusanofO -> RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (8/1/2006 8:34:07 PM)
There are some really screwed up relatonships and folks out there, no doubt about it. That does sound like me imposing my mindset on others, but I agree with you, too, marie. I worry about some folks when I read some threads here at CM, no doubt about it. - Susan

Homestead -> RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (8/1/2006 8:37:39 PM)
I can see that Amayos understands the mixture of the objective, mixed with the emotive. And which has priority. My take on consensual slavery is that it's not about boyfriend/girlfriend playing a romantic sex game. That would seem to be the majority rule. The minority take is a bit more spartan. The dynamic itself rules the relationship more-not the romantic. It does not rule out that aspect, only places it secondary to the philosophy of structured relations-and exactly who excercises the primary perogatives.

SusanofO -> RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (8/1/2006 8:42:29 PM)
Homestead: Yes. That's mostly my interpretation too. Although I don't seem to hear as much on the CM boards from those in the spartan category, I know there exist those I have seemed to put in one category, and then they turn out later to be in the other one, (or another altogether), because they either change, or else I haven't read enough of what they've written to be able to make a valid judgment about that for myself, really. - Susan

Homestead -> RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (8/1/2006 8:52:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO Homestead: Yes. That's my interpretation too. - Susan Ownership is a manangement dynamic, rather than a romantic one. Real slavery was a financial arrangement. It provided low cost and consistent labor after an initial investment. Of course, there was always continuous maintance involved-including attempts to manage the mental states of the slaves. Real slaves only had freedom in thier thoughts. Humans are like that.[;)] In consensual slavery, the master must have a degree of manipulative intelligence to reenforce the dynamic of the slave's self-will to obedience. It is a very cold and calculated process of conditioning-but the master also makes use of emotive renforcement at the same time. He may not choose to really love the slave, but will encourage the slaves to love him-for it deepens her devotion. An owner possesses a certain level of mental compartmentalization to keep his or her control. One one hand, one can have real affection for a piece of property..On the other, it is never forgotten why it is there-or what needs to be done to keep it so.

SusanofO -> RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (8/1/2006 8:54:57 PM)
Homestead: Yes, I believe that's true - that's my impression as well. - Susan

MistressSassy66 -> RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (8/1/2006 9:14:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO I do think people in genuine, conventional Master-slave relationships such as amayos describes, do (or can) feel genuine love for their Masters, and are many times in return loved back by those Masters, but not in a more conventional way that might ncessarily be understood by some (maybe by many) people. And - if they are not, well, they've chosen it for themselves, for whatever reason. - Susan That was very well put. Being a Mistress with a slave, I can speak for her and reply with The word to her simply means unconditional devotion.With that devotion comes an unconditional love.I may call her My slave bishop,but she is a person first.A person who(m) I love dearly and have for the last 7 years.I have branded her with tats and My initials with a hot item.To U/us it means I am her Owner.I look after her she in turn sees to My needs.The thing I see as being different...is a sense of a deeper commitment than say an "I do" or being a submissive/bottom. Not saying that the "I do" isnt a commitment,because W/we had a Union ceremony exchanged rings and I had My last name legally(through the Courts) changed to hers(long story).So I see O/our Union as a Marriage with commitment.Just a different kind. I think I went way OFF TOPIC there...sorry.

amayos -> RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (8/1/2006 9:14:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Homestead My take on consensual slavery is that it's not about boyfriend/girlfriend playing a romantic sex game. That would seem to be the majority rule. The minority take is a bit more spartan. The dynamic itself rules the relationship more-not the romantic. It does not rule out that aspect, only places it secondary to the philosophy of structured relations-and exactly who excercises the primary perogatives. Very astute and well articulated—and with fewer words than it usually takes me.

Homestead -> RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (8/1/2006 9:48:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos quote: ORIGINAL: Homestead My take on consensual slavery is that it's not about boyfriend/girlfriend playing a romantic sex game. That would seem to be the majority rule. The minority take is a bit more spartan. The dynamic itself rules the relationship more-not the romantic. It does not rule out that aspect, only places it secondary to the philosophy of structured relations-and exactly who excercises the primary perogatives. Very astute and well articulated—and with fewer words than it usually takes me. Thank you. It can be distressing that so few understand the workings of a Steward. They make a simple thing complex beyond all reason. And in the shuffle of trite words, all meaning is lost.

KnightofMists -> RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (8/1/2006 10:03:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo I dont think there is "shame" in any of it, as long as no one is being taken advantage of in a way that is going to leave them damaged. This is the part that concerns me. Submissives being convinced that they are somehow divine and meant to live their lives as slaves....I mean slaves. After a while you're fucked. You cant get out, you dont believe you can get out. You dont want to get out. Its just dangerous. Your life as you know it is over. And people havent a clue how serious it is. It agitates me how easily the word slave is thrown around by those who have no clue that this shit goes on to an extent that most have never and will never understand. I agree... Many are seriously hurt and harm because they recklessly enter into such a dynamic. Ironically, those that play at the surface are protected by there own lack of desires for more. But, those who seek the depths are sure to find more than they see from the surface and it is a very long ways back to the surface when they have reach the complete depths of there submission.

KnightofMists -> RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (8/1/2006 10:10:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo There is a huge difference between people who live their lives in slavery as opposed to someone who considers him/herself a slave to their lover or their spouse. again I agree... my Master is my Lover is greatly different than My Lover is My Master. only one dynamic takes priority in a given relationship. pity are those that have a difference in which dynamic is the higher of the two.

popeye1250 -> RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (8/1/2006 10:12:32 PM)
Marksl, In my opinion I could be so much closer with a sub or slave in this lifestyle than I ever could in a vanilla relationship. Not to say that vanilla relationships are bad or anything but there's just so many more things you can do in this lifestyle! In a 24/7 relationship you could have a constant undercurrent of sexual tension that just doesn't exist in the vanilla world. I think that I'd just naturally have a much more intense relationship in this lifestyle than any other. Oh, I don't care what your buddy "Zen" says either.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Who Takes this Game Seriously? (8/2/2006 12:35:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo I dont think there is "shame" in any of it, as long as no one is being taken advantage of in a way that is going to leave them damaged. This is the part that concerns me. Submissives being convinced that they are somehow divine and meant to live their lives as slaves....I mean slaves. After a while you're fucked. You cant get out, you dont believe you can get out. You dont want to get out. Its just dangerous. Your life as you know it is over. And people havent a clue how serious it is. It agitates me how easily the word slave is thrown around by those who have no clue that this shit goes on to an extent that most have never and will never understand. There was so much on this thread that I wanted to reply to, but your post really stood out to me, marie. I agree with you fully that the word slave is thrown around rather casually. What I do not understand is the first part of your post, in which you seem to be describing slavery to be a bad thing (unless I have misunderstood) . Assuming you are speaking generically, how is slavery dangerous? Or do you mean if it is in the wrong hands? "Your life as you know it is over" is true, but why is that considered bad? I thank God and Master that life as I knew it is over. Perhaps we are looking at this from different angles. In reading further, you do not equate slavery with romance; neither do I. I agree with you there as well, which is why I had trouble understanding your other statements, which seemed negative toward slavery. Again, please correct me if I have misunderstood.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.100586E-02