RE: too compliant?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: too compliant?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: too compliant?

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: too compliant? - 8/31/2006 2:15:28 PM

liljoy

Posts: 577
Joined: 3/25/2004
Status: offline

ownedgirlie,
lol these threads often tak on a life of thier own that's part of what i like about them. After my recent experience i understand someone set on not giving up everything financially too so it's all good to me
lil_joy

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

Marie, You speak words that make perfect sense for someone in your position - a mother with a child to care for, and, as far as I understand, not in a current circumstance where there is an owner above you.

What I speak of is situation-dependent in many ways. If I were unowned, I would not be so verbal in advertising a willingness to give up all my money and possessions for another. Particularly since that "other" is not someone who existed for me yet. This is why I emphasize to know your Master. Know who you are committing yourself to. Know your situation (I am using "your" in the general sense here).

Apologies to liljoy if we have diverted off topic. Moving in with a Master is indeed a form of compliancy, but not the only form. In my case, not living with him is part of my compliancy.

(in reply to ownedgirlie)

Profile

Post #: 141

RE: too compliant? - 8/31/2006 2:22:46 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

Im happy for your both on your impending marriage and I wish you both the best. But lets not try to ride the wave of a fairy tale and suggest that reality doesnt sometimes happen. Thats why we have IRA's and think about how we're going to eat in our old age, no? My concern is synonymous with that. Its not about planning for failure. Its not about material possessions. Its the fact that if you really do have love and trust and all that other happy warm and fuzzy stuff, that a Master wouldnt even begin to think about the suggestion that his most valued possesion (his slave) sign her material possessions over to him. This by the way is no better than a gold-digging vanilla whore who wants to marry a doctor because they have moeny. I am not speaking about you personally. I am speaking about something that can and does happen. And I think in wiitwd it sometimes makes victims out of otherwise naive people. On BOTH ends. When a slave (unmarried with no rights) signs over her home, savings account and everything she has, it leaves him/her in a position where their choice is now removed, possibly for the rest of their lives. That is what I was speaking about. Though, I probably wasnt clear enough. You are getting married. And the world through rose colored glasses is a beautiful thing when you're wearing them. But if you remove them and look to your left and look to your right, you will see victims of what it is I am refering to.

Marie,
In all cases I only speak of personal experiences. I didn't extrapolate anything you said, I only responded to you questioning what beth said. Not to protect her, but to give you the perspective of her position. Now you say that perspective is through "rose colored glasses" and our life is a "fairy tale". Sorry it's not. It's based upon taking the time to be sure neither of us was putting trust in a person who didn't warrant it. There was no shortcut involved. There wasn't any "test" we gave each other. Time transpired, and experiences shared took us to the place we are now. Are vision is crystal clear, and only colored by reality.

No matter how you rationalize it, you ARE concerned with material possessions. What else enters into your response? Your "what if's" are all based upon failure.

The only position I've ever taken on relationships is that if you can't trust the other person with your life - DON'T. Don't trust them with your emotions. Don't trust them with your mental well being. Don't trust them with possessions. In my world the first thing I'd trust them with is the material possessions, because they are easiest replaced or done without. My emotions, my mental well being were the last thing I surrendered. Yes, a "Master" surrenders too. At least this one does. And with my personal history, I assure you, obtaining that level of trust was no easy task. The "marriage" factor was a pragmatic, one stroke, solution to a myriad of issues, not the least of which was decision authority if either of us was incapacitated. Besides, its a great reason to have a party. But finances and joint ownership of possessions was not one of those issues.

There are many here you go from one person to the other. You can observe people who have had 10 different "masters" and 10 different "slaves"; because the goal was being a "slave" or "master" not being in a Master/slave relationship. I say to you if you don't give or surrender all to the relationship you set yourself up for failure. Even if it's one little item, I compare it to one little cancer cell. Somewhere down the road, with the proper stimulation, that cancer cell will metastasize.

Some people are "lucky" and get hit by a bus before it happens. But most relationship have stimulation outside their control. If the partners see an impact on one, not effecting the other, or see its potential as a cause to need a personal safety net, the relationship has set itself up for failure.

I don't see victims when I look left and right. I do see people who took shortcuts, or really didn't want to give or get that level of commitment to a relationship. In effect they are self fulfilling prophets. If you hold back a material possession, "just in case"; you already believe some day that "just in case" will happen. If you have doubt that it will, the option is to NOT make that commitment.

(in reply to marieToo)

Profile

Post #: 142

RE: too compliant? - 8/31/2006 2:33:46 PM

marieToo

Posts: 3595
Joined: 5/21/2006
From: Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

Marie, You speak words that make perfect sense for someone in your position - a mother with a child to care for, and, as far as I understand, not in a current circumstance where there is an owner above you.

What I speak of is situation-dependent in many ways. If I were unowned, I would not be so verbal in advertising a willingness to give up all my money and possessions for another. Particularly since that "other" is not someone who existed for me yet. This is why I emphasize to know your Master. Know who you are committing yourself to. Know your situation (I am using "your" in the general sense here).

Apologies to liljoy if we have diverted off topic. Moving in with a Master is indeed a form of compliancy, but not the only form. In my case, not living with him is part of my compliancy.

I hear you ownedgirlie. I always do. :)

I think from some of the posts that went off topic, something sent me into the idea, of NOT what you're talking about or what MercBeth are talking about, but more about the types who think that its acceptable in the 'world of bdsm' to demand such ($$ possesions etc) simply in the name of being a slave. Im not talking about two people who pool their resources for the betterment of their household, or someone giving money to charity, or to a bum on the street who needs something to eat. Im talking about those who get taken advantage of by predators. I mean....In the vanilla world if we were dating and in search of a spouse, we surely wouldnt say "If you wanna be MY wife baby, I get it ALL, bring your mortgage note and car title to our next date bitch.". Yet somehow, that attitude becomes acceptable and accepted in bdsm, by some who just dont know any better. I really dont mean to remove value from anyones relationship. Im simply veering off onto something that kinda sorta came up here. I dont mean to focus on the negative. But sometimes healthy people talk about cancer, ya know?

Im not here condemning anyone's relationship as corrupt. But you know me well enough to know that it just sickens me to see anyone being taken advantage of. I guess that wasnt where this thread started though.

eeek. :)

(in reply to ownedgirlie)

Profile

Post #: 143

RE: too compliant? - 8/31/2006 3:02:44 PM

marieToo

Posts: 3595
Joined: 5/21/2006
From: Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

If you hold back a material possession, "just in case"; you already believe some day that "just in case" will happen. If you have doubt that it will, the option is to NOT make that commitment.

Wrong. I dont already believe that "just in case" WILL happen. I believe it COULD happen.   In fact Ive lived it. Are you divorced? Or beth divorced? Or anyone else you know?

Your "option" to not make a commitment is not the only option. Theres also the option of making the commitment, but loving one another enough to make provisions so that you may each go on if it ends. And not needing to take material things from another person in the name of dominance and submission. Thats all Im talking about. This isnt about you and beth personally, from my point of view.

Someone (anyone, bdsm, vanilla) putting themselves in a position of having no way out IF "just in case" DOES happen, (especially with kids on your hip) would be sheerly crazy in my book, and has absolutely nothing to do with love or devotion or doubt of your partner. Its just reality....shit happens. I dont smoke cuz I want to lower my risk of cancer. I dont spend all my money cuz I wanna eat when Im 75. I dont drive drunk, cuz I dont wanna kill someone. I dont sign over my stuff cuz I dont want to be on the street someday. Does any of this mean I believe I will get cancer if I smoke, or that I believe I will kill someone if I drink and drive? No, it means I am planning for the prevention of it, not the inevitability of it.

If you wear your seatbelt when you drive, do you already believe youre going to be injured or die in a car wreck??   Or are you just taking precautions to lessen your chances of it?

I dont equate love/devotion/commitment with money; I never have, I never will.  The words dont even belong in the same sentence together for any other reason than to debate it, We may just have to agree to disagree.

Once again, this isnt and never was meant to come off as personal. If it did, that certainly was not my intent.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Profile

Post #: 144

RE: too compliant? - 8/31/2006 3:08:11 PM

Sunshine119

Posts: 611
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Im happy for your both on your impending marriage and I wish you both the best. But lets not try to ride the wave of a fairy tale and suggest that reality doesnt sometimes happen. Thats why we have IRA's and think about how we're going to eat in our old age, no? My concern is synonymous with that. Its not about planning for failure. Its not about material possessions. Its the fact that if you really do have love and trust and all that other happy warm and fuzzy stuff, that a Master wouldnt even begin to think about the suggestion that his most valued possesion (his slave) sign her material possessions over to him. This by the way is no better than a gold-digging vanilla whore who wants to marry a doctor because they have moeny. I am not speaking about you personally. I am speaking about something that can and does happen. And I think in wiitwd it sometimes makes victims out of otherwise naive people. On BOTH ends. When a slave (unmarried with no rights) signs over her home, savings account and everything she has, it leaves him/her in a position where their choice is now removed, possibly for the rest of their lives. That is what I was speaking about. Though, I probably wasnt clear enough. You are getting married. And the world through rose colored glasses is a beautiful thing when you're wearing them. But if you remove them and look to your left and look to your right, you will see victims of what it is I am refering to.

Marie,
In all cases I only speak of personal experiences. I didn't extrapolate anything you said, I only responded to you questioning what beth said. Not to protect her, but to give you the perspective of her position. Now you say that perspective is through "rose colored glasses" and our life is a "fairy tale". Sorry it's not. It's based upon taking the time to be sure neither of us was putting trust in a person who didn't warrant it. There was no shortcut involved. There wasn't any "test" we gave each other. Time transpired, and experiences shared took us to the place we are now. Are vision is crystal clear, and only colored by reality.

Merc,

I only have one question: Will you have a pre-nuptial agreement? If so, does it protect Beth? There are many of us here that have been married for many, many years. In my case, with no apparent problems. To the world it looked like the perfect marriage. I am hopeful that a Master/slave relationship would actual protect marriage more than destroy it, so I am especially hopeful for yours. Congratulations.

Sunshine

_____________________________

Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Profile

Post #: 145

RE: too compliant? - 8/31/2006 3:30:38 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

Wrong. I dont already believe that "just in case" WILL happen. I believe it COULD happen. In fact Ive lived it. Are you divorced? Or beth divorced? Or anyone else you know?

Yes, both of us, which we used as a reference point to get where we are today. It was why the process of trust wasn't accomplished overnight.

quote:

Your "option" to not make a commitment is not the only option. Theres also the option of making the commitment, but loving one another enough to make provisions so that you may each go on if it ends. And not needing to take material things from another person in the name of dominance and submission. Thats all Im talking about. This isnt about you and beth personally, from my point of view.

I'd argue that our solution has a better change of success than yours. Only the failure of ours will prove us wrong. But I state the basic premise again. If you can't trust your potential partner with everything you have, don't trust them with anything.

Nothing you stated was taken personal, I hope you feel the same.

quote:

If you wear your seatbelt when you drive, do you already believe youre going to be injured or die in a car wreck?? Or are you just taking precautions to lessen your chances of it?

Neither, I wear one because I don't want to incur the fine. I find seat-belts intrusive, offensive, and take away my personal freedom.

Marie, no need to agree to disagree; we have plenty of common ground specific to the OP. I've observed many people who are "too compliant". I think beth was. she was taken advantage of often before we met. There were many people who tried to continue to do so, but didn't get far and it ended once our relationship started. It goes back to something I posted earlier in the thread. Too many people are so desperate to jump into a relationship in order to be validated that they comply to any request no matter how ridiculous it is.

I think a person needs to be very strong and focused before submitting. Stronger yet before deciding to completely surrender as a person's slave. I believe a 'submissive personality' exists but it has to be fought when it comes to making this critical a life decision. If there is any legitimate reason for counseling or 'mentoring' it is to account for this personality trait. I believe there are not many responsible people of a dominant personality available. People who are dominant and confident are rarely alone unless they want to be, or are searching for something very specific and rare. I think the majority of people on sites such as CM representing themselves as dominant are doing so just to get laid and take advantage of the exact personality trait that you identify correctly as vulnerable. Because many of the internet based story fantasies represent that a dominant does unilaterally take everything from the submissive some submissives see it as a right of passage. In that context there is such a thing as being "too compliant". "Turn over ALL you have to me", should be treated the same as if some dominant says you can't have my home phone number because as a submissive you don't deserve it. In our heart we know both are signs of fraud. However it's impossible to protect some people from themselves, no matter how ridiculous the scenario seems after the fact.

Be well! No offensive taken and none given.

Edited to add this reply to Sunshine:

quote:

I only have one question: Will you have a pre-nuptial agreement? If so, does it protect Beth?

No. If something happens I'm making sure beth takes me for every penny I have, but I want my piano music!

If you guys could all just visit us to know how silly the idea of a pre-nup would be. One of the first things we found out that we had in common was when each of us divorced we both said the same thing to our spouse; "take it ALL and leave me alone." Although I think beth added a few choice curse words in her case. I can just see it, we'd both leave and everything in the place would remain to collect dust.

< Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 8/31/2006 3:42:54 PM >

(in reply to marieToo)

Profile

Post #: 146

RE: too compliant? - 8/31/2006 3:43:37 PM

marieToo

Posts: 3595
Joined: 5/21/2006
From: Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

If you wear your seatbelt when you drive, do you already believe youre going to be injured or die in a car wreck?? Or are you just taking precautions to lessen your chances of it?

Neither, I wear one because I don't want to incur the fine. I find seat-belts intrusive, offensive, and take away my personal freedom.

Ah geees!! I shouldve known!

Seriously, All your points were well-taken. Thank you for the exchange.

Edited to put my font in red, cuz those damn font boxes never turn out right for me.

< Message edited by marieToo -- 8/31/2006 3:58:24 PM >

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Profile

Post #: 147

RE: too compliant? - 9/1/2006 6:37:45 AM

onestandingstill

Posts: 1335
Joined: 8/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

If you wear your seatbelt when you drive, do you already believe youre going to be injured or die in a car wreck?? Or are you just taking precautions to lessen your chances of it?

Neither, I wear one because I don't want to incur the fine. I find seat-belts intrusive, offensive, and take away my personal freedom.

Ah geees!! I shouldve known!

Seriously, All your points were well-taken. Thank you for the exchange.

Edited to put my font in red, cuz those damn font boxes never turn out right for me.

Hey marie,
if you type your words below the place where you see the bracket /quote bracket (typed out the word bracket as I thought the [ mark may have made the message show wierd) your words will not be part of the quote inside the box. Believe me I had a hell of a time copying quotes for a while too till LA helped me figure things out.
Suzanne

(in reply to marieToo)

Profile

Post #: 148

RE: too compliant? - 9/1/2006 5:50:38 PM

liljoy

Posts: 577
Joined: 3/25/2004
Status: offline

i think that proves it's not about material things for ya'll
lil_joy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Edited to add this reply to Sunshine:
quote:

I only have one question: Will you have a pre-nuptial agreement? If so, does it protect Beth?

No. If something happens I'm making sure beth takes me for every penny I have, but I want my piano music! If you guys could all just visit us to know how silly the idea of a pre-nup would be. One of the first things we found out that we had in common was when each of us divorced we both said the same thing to our spouse; "take it ALL and leave me alone." Although I think beth added a few choice curse words in her case. I can just see it, we'd both leave and everything in the place would remain to collect dust.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Profile

Post #: 149

RE: too compliant? - 9/4/2006 10:20:43 AM

KnightofMists

Posts: 7149
Joined: 7/29/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: liljoy

Do we as submissives and/or slaves strive to submit all only to find that if we achieve it The Dominant becomes bored or considers us doormats? Should we not strive to submit all?

lil_joy

I find it difficult to comprehend why a Dominant would become bored or consider a submissive/slave a doormat when they reach a place in there submission that compliance is an expected absolute. I can only consider that such individuals are motivated not for the thrill and desire of being in a relationship but are motivated to a goal and once achieved look for another goal.

For me ... my girls are not a goal to achieve.... they are a Power Enhancing Relationship. We enhance ourselves individual and as a unit. alandra has been with me a lot of years... long ago we reached a point that I can expect absolute compliance and obedience for that she wears a lock upon her collar. Reaching this point in our journey has only enhanced the excitement and passion in our lives. We live a Power Enhancing Relationship that focuses on we becoming one unit of Power that is individually contributed to and that constantlly being pushed to be enhance that power. But, as a the authority in the relationship... I control this power that we have together. kyra has entered into our lives... slowly the trust and confidence is being built and someday she will wear a lock on her collar that will further represent the expected absolute compliance and obedience of my girls.

Our journey is to enhance both our power and its effective use. compliance and obedience from girls increases the power an it's effectiveness. But be aware... to be compliant and obedient doesn't equate to blindly following without using the wisdom and intellect that they have. However, there wisdom and intellect is put to me for my use and consideration. It is only the foolish and reckless person that dismisses the wisdom and intellect without any consideration.

I would also note that my ownership of my girls doesn't equate to blind faith that we will always be together. Yes there is the expectation and the hope that we are together for the rest of our lives. But it would be reckless of me to put at risk my girls well-being becuase I refuse to consider the risks or take precautions to protect them from risk.. even if that risk is me. I see to many individuals blindly jump into a relationship and invest all (physical, emotionally, Intellectually and even spirtually). They take steps to build trust and contend that the steps of trust will protect them from the risks of failure. However, it is ironic that every failed relationship I have seen and suspect it is rare that any intimate relaitonship that failed would say they had no trust in the beginning. Is it not the nature of relationships to build trust and have trust for them to grow and succeed. But, somewhere along the line these relationships failed and the trust died and so did the relationship. It is foolhardy to think that one can give all and think that their own individual recipe for a successful relationship is going to succeed. The fact is there is risk in a relationship. Knowing the risk and protecting against that risk is to me an important responsibility of the Master in a M/s relationship. My girls do give all... but they are steps taken to protect them as well... In short what is invested is not gambled but actually "Invested" with an expectation to enhance and growth. Steps are also taken to protect that which is invest that one doesn't risk more than they can afford to lose.

For example... my girls invest all obedience and compliance to my authority... but they do not risk their whole identity as a person. In fact they function with their self-identity within the identity of our relationship. The self is protected but contributes to the whole. I find it foolhardy that I would build a house and then undermind the foundations of the house. How strong is the house then? That is the thinng with relationships in my opinion.... The self is part of the foundation to the house... the house being the relationship!

_____________________________

Knight of Mists

An Optimal relationship is achieved when the individuals do what is best for themselves and their relationship.

(in reply to liljoy)

Profile

Post #: 150