quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead

quote:

ORIGINAL: darkinshadows

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead

quote:

ORIGINAL: darkinshadows

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead
Meditation has valid uses in self-awareness and growth.

I quite agree.  But does it require a girl's hands to be useless and for her to be tied with a 2 foot chain to accomplish that?  Being locked in a cage or closet would also work.  So would being shunned to a corner of the room. 

It appears the point of this thread is changing, unless I am misunderstanding.  The original question was what to do if unable to use hands, added to include being tethered to a 2 foot chain. The scenario has completely changed, which creates a different outcome...doesn't it?

I agree with girlie. I dont think that being mittened is the only way to reach or learn meditation.

I think thats why I am becoming confused as well, because the scenario is altering and I see different outcomes and training.

 

Peace and Rapture

This scenario can lead in many different directions, just like individuals. I have been accused many times here of being rigid - I am anything but. I have an extremely active and adaptive mind, and will often see where a 'flow' will lead. If you can do this, it creates an immense base of personal power. Your perceptions broaden, and more tools come into your hands. And with these tools, one can create yet others.

In this scenario a dependency is created, and an intimacy, along with it. Things taken for granted are cast into stark releif.

Oh I understand.  But what is becoming confusing is that this never started out as a scene that progressed.  Yes, any scene adapts... but people arent responding to the adaptations... there are too many mixed messages coming in here which is bad communication.  Any scene develops - but in a situation like this - on a message board the lesson is being lost.

 

You mention to girlie that you constantly communicate as you go.  But in this thread, its being lost.

The thread as it began is different to how its evolved - both equal different scenarios.  Both have different lessons.

 

Peace and Rapture

It is the nature of threads to wander. Consider examing why my letting it go it's way upsets you so much. Or do you think I am training someone here? I am simply engaging in a discourse that interests me.

I am engaging also... I find this fascinating... I am enjoying watching certain responses...

quote:

ORIGINAL: zumala

I have to admit that I sort of got lost somewhere along the way with this thread.  I'm not even quite sure of what we're supposed to be discussing now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zumala

I have to admit that I sort of got lost somewhere along the way with this thread.  I'm not even quite sure of what we're supposed to be discussing now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead

quote:

ORIGINAL: zumala

I have to admit that I sort of got lost somewhere along the way with this thread.  I'm not even quite sure of what we're supposed to be discussing now.

Dependency.

Good and bad. It's been consistent the whole time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

quote:

ORIGINAL: zumala

I have to admit that I sort of got lost somewhere along the way with this thread.  I'm not even quite sure of what we're supposed to be discussing now.

Loafing.

Ohhhh!  Thanks, Level!  White, wheat, rye, sourdough, or pumpernickle? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: zumala

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead

quote:

ORIGINAL: zumala

I have to admit that I sort of got lost somewhere along the way with this thread.  I'm not even quite sure of what we're supposed to be discussing now.

Dependency.

Good and bad. It's been consistent the whole time.

I'm not sure dependency is good or bad in and of itself.  It's more a matter of degree of dependency that determines that.  The instant someone ceases to be concerned with their own well-being at all - that's probably too dependent.  When you can't think on your own and have given up having an opinion? - That's gone too far.  If you've reached a point where if your Dom died or left you couldn't survive on your own - You're too dependent.
 
zuma

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearlee

Ummmmmm… Mstrix, Sir, as sublizzie said, it is difficult to serve needs to one who does not want their needs to be anticipated.  I believe in ‘interactive’ relationships.  I want to make him happy; yes…even if confounding my desires is what it IS that makes him happy.  The caveat being ‘on occasion’.  I do not want a power struggle with a Dominant.  If we don’t ‘work’…I’ll wander away (should I not yet belong TO him, I mean). 
 
Yes, I DO want to relinquish control.  Yes, that does sound delicious; very much so.  Still…overall, I want to please him without smothering him…I want an M/s relationship with ‘undertones’ of normalcy.  Is that not possible?
 
While I see an M/s relationship (that I desire) as 24/7, I do not see how it could include ‘shelving’ one another for half a day or more at a time.  Okay…perhaps the occasional ‘scene’ might be that long; but generally speaking, we’d have to actually live in a pretty-much vanilla world, would we not?
 
bear

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emperor1956

FastReply, as there isn't any one post I was thinking of.

I have a different take.  And maybe I'm alone here (it sure seems like it).  This thread -- and specifically some of the Dominants talking about using this tactic to mold/shape/change/teach the submissive -- made Me vaguely angry and nauseated.  I am currently involved with a very devoted service submissive.  I cannot imagine holly growing from, enjoying, or even tolerating, this treatment.  And by "tolerating" I mean that while she would do it -- I have no doubt of that, if I told her this was something I wanted -- the toll on our relationship, on her and on Me, would be great. 

But moreover,  I cannot imagine doing this with anyone I cared about enough to be in a relationship with.  If I had a girl who behaved in ways that made this treatment "necessary" (which is one way that the OP and others have justified it) I would rapidly no longer have the girl, or the issue.  I love keeping a girl in bondage.  I understand sensory deprivation as a tool.  But the idea of shaping her behavior thru this "tactic" chills Me.  It seems like punishment, and more.  But of course, YMMV.

(END of Emperor's reasoned, rational, politically correct post.  Here's what He wanted to say:

So, I've thought it thru, and you know what?  I'm STILL angry.  Obviously I have to meditate a bit and figure out why.  (don't worry, my unbounded ego tells Me I'm pretty much right on track, anyway *GRIN*).  Here's my initial response:

To the OP, and the Dominants who think this paralysis simulation sounds so cool:   Gee, why mess with those silly bondage mittens?  Instead, why don't you just get a submissive with a nice C4 or lower break?  She won't have the use of her hands or arms, and MAYBE as time progresses, so will her paralysis, and you'll get real lucky and have a total quad to take care of.  Change her diapers several times a day, clean and swab her pressure sores, catheterize her DAILY for 15- 20 years, watch her abilities deteriorate, and you will be a REAL MASTER. And God damn your soul to Hell for even thinking that a day without the use of your arms is somehow liberating, enlightening or cool.

E.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead

You seemed to be harping a bit.

I'm communicating ideas. Training is something I do on a personal level-your definition may vary. I can choose what I come away with, as can you.

Hey...harpings what I do best!

Depends on the definition of training, agreed.  The definition of personal is - personal - too...

...and as for walking away with something - I make mine creamcheese on rye

quote:

ORIGINAL: mstrjx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearlee

Ummmmmm… Mstrix, Sir, as sublizzie said, it is difficult to serve needs to one who does not want their needs to be anticipated.  I believe in ‘interactive’ relationships.  I want to make him happy; yes…even if confounding my desires is what it IS that makes him happy.  The caveat being ‘on occasion’.  I do not want a power struggle with a Dominant.  If we don’t ‘work’…I’ll wander away (should I not yet belong TO him, I mean). 
 
Yes, I DO want to relinquish control.  Yes, that does sound delicious; very much so.  Still…overall, I want to please him without smothering him…I want an M/s relationship with ‘undertones’ of normalcy.  Is that not possible?
 
While I see an M/s relationship (that I desire) as 24/7, I do not see how it could include ‘shelving’ one another for half a day or more at a time.  Okay…perhaps the occasional ‘scene’ might be that long; but generally speaking, we’d have to actually live in a pretty-much vanilla world, would we not?
 
bear

Well, I leave asking me a question on page 3, and already page 5 is about to come to a close.  What did I miss?  Oh, that.

I think I addressed the nature of the intent of the OP before, but I'll address Bearlee's question here.  Maybe we'll all get something out of it.

It's September, and in the US it's the beginning of college football season.  No, this isn't a sports thread it's an analogy.

I'm going to use 'owner' here, because as I indicated before this type of discussion is far more along the lines of an M/s or 'owner'/'possession' sort of thing.  This isn't garden-variety submission.

So the coach is the owner, the player the possessed.

Different teams have different types of strategies for their success.  Some teams do just one thing, with degrees of similarities all of the time, and they can be successful.  The fans know what is coming, the other team know what is coming, but the success of the player, directed by the coach, still brings success.

Other teams have a style that allows for variety.  The player needs to be versatile in several areas.  This keeps everyone guessing, but it is the coach that is calling the play.

Coaches have preferences, styles, expertise in certain areas.  A coach who thrives in one area alone is no better or worse than another coach who has skills (perhaps even expert skills) in a multitude of areas.  They are completely different philosophies.

Players have skills as well.  If they are just starting out, they need to learn the rules of the game, and try and adapt with their coach.  More experienced players already know that they have skills in one or more areas.  They might know that playing for an incompatible coach, whose style predicated one thing whereas the skill of the player was in another, would not be a recipe for success.

This style of objectification is a tool, or a set of similar plays.  Just as flogging or whipping or painplay of that sort is a tool.  Emotional masochism is a tool.  Pure service is a tool.  Although we live under a sort of umbrella, there is a reason we use the acronym WIITWD.  It's very hard to categorize each and every one of us easily, when our styles are divergent.

As a slave, it might be important to understand what style or styles you are capable of conforming to.  It is your responsibility to yourself to select a master that best meets your needs, because once the selection is over, your choices are limited.  To use Susan's fantasies in this light, if she wants to be play-raped one day, caged the next, and whipped to the point of blood the following, then she shouldn't pick a master who desires a specialty in pure service.

Again, one is not better than another.

When I started my journey 15 years ago, going into it there was one thing that I knew I liked.  But my first steps here was to learn and embrace virtually everything we do.  So I believe I understand what Homestead is driving at in this thread (and I said so before).  And as slaves, we need to understand whether this facet, this tool, is one that can be interesting to us.  Whether it be for 'today's activity' or our lives.

But we would know that when we negotiate prior to starting our relationship, wouldn't we?

Jeff

quote:

ORIGINAL: darkinshadows

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead

You seemed to be harping a bit.

I'm communicating ideas. Training is something I do on a personal level-your definition may vary. I can choose what I come away with, as can you.

Hey...harpings what I do best!

Depends on the definition of training, agreed.  The definition of personal is - personal - too...

 

...and as for walking away with something - I make mine creamcheese on rye

 

Peace and Rapture

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead

quote:

ORIGINAL: darkinshadows

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead

You seemed to be harping a bit.

I'm communicating ideas. Training is something I do on a personal level-your definition may vary. I can choose what I come away with, as can you.

Hey...harpings what I do best!

Depends on the definition of training, agreed.  The definition of personal is - personal - too...

 

...and as for walking away with something - I make mine creamcheese on rye

 

Peace and Rapture

Dammit! Now I'm hungry.

However, my hands, with you... would be tied...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead

I do not require intent to be guessed. I communicate as I go. Neither do I expect a slave to be so ignorant or rigid in mindset that she cannot use logic and intuition to follow my lead. Yes, it's a test of ability.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead

A dependency should not supercede a girl's need to see to herself. Simply bleeding into another indivual is no real way to increase both in potential. It's more a parasitism than a symbiosis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Celeste43

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead

There may be days that I am simply in a crappy mood, and need to work it out on my own. I'm male, and I tend to be stubborn about needing my space-when I need it. When I need alone time, don't screw with me. So "little mary sunshine" waltzing in to "fix" me in these times, will not be well received. Nor will her undergoing an emotional implosion on being told so, help to lighten my stress levels.

Seems to involve unnecessary stress on everyone. If he's in a bad mood and wants to be left alone, all he has to do is tell me. I probably will still bring his tea and cook his dinner, but that's because it's SOP around here. So if he didn't want even that, he would need to tell me.

But I can't see any purpose in all this. Plus in my relationship, he would not chain me to a wall and abandon me for hours on end. Against his principles. Therefore the situation you've set up, in my relationship, would involve him providing constant service to me.

Nothing in the op specified all the other stuff you've added. Basically, I wouldn't be with someone who's so passive aggressive that he couldn't even say "I'm in a bad mood, better not try to talk to me until I feel better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead

You may want to note that I did say exactly that. And how annoying it is to have emotional drama played out over telling a girl to leave me alone. Please pay attention.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead

A slave is a well adjusted team member to me. Someone comptently capable of following my lead and using her common sense to help with the overall program. I don't want a carbon copy of me. I don't want total agreement on every niggling detail, every opinion. That will not help ME to grow and broaden my horizons.

If a slave becomes overly dependent on me, what will happen if I am incapacitated in a crisis?  Dependency must have a BOUNDARY. This is why I often disagree with what you write here. You do not seem to realize that those boundaries equate to a higher plane of service. Instead, you seem to seek to eliminate them. I do not find this to be particularly worthy.

YYMV  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearlee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mavis

on fast reply, i don't see the issue with this, unless it turns out to be that i am actually just lazy.   but i dont have this huge urge to be DOING..   i'm rather like a  companion slave.  Just interacting, being His company, "co-loafing" has much appeal. 

i love to be asked for a drink or refill, i love having it ready before asked too, but i'm also quite content to be standing at the counter chatting, and see Him refill my cup as W/we chat. i might remark "Oh, i should have gotten that" but W/we B/both know, if it had been more important than the discussion, i'd have been told so.  /quote]

<turns her back on Homey and refuses to bother him any longer...but continues to the rest of the 'audience':  ...>

I agree with others here; should 'he' wish to be left along, all he has to do is say so.  While I can 'anticipate' his needs, I cannot read his mind.  I'm happy to leave him to his druthers...

make sense?
bear 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead

Having a tantrum Bearlee?

Uhhh, actually I am not, Sir.  I am refusing to play guessing games, nor display annoying drama; I’m using my intellect, here.  I’m in agreement with you…it’s so much piss (or is that crap?) to play such games as ‘Play with MEEEEeeeeeeee’.   Yanno?  I wasn’t even replying to you, Sir; but to the others on this thread. 
 
And I say this with the utmost respect, Sir…

bearlee

(in reply to Homestead)

quote:

  Sound even more delicious?

quote:

Homestead, it sounds like you definately want "low maintainance" slaves who require a minimum of "affection" and attention.

quote:

I'm not as ridgid as you emotionally for sure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Homestead, I wasn't "criticising" you I was simply pointing out our differences.
If you want very "low maintainance" subs/slaves who require little interaction and infrequent sex there's certainly nothing "wrong" with that.
I'm just the polar opposite from you.
That's all I was saying.

popeye, I am a diverse and creative individual. I can be anything from a total sex-fiend to abstinent. It all depends on my moods and methodologies. I can also range from a teddy bear, to the coldest of reptiles in my mindsets. I have reasons for this.

I am ecletic, not limited. These sorts of arguments can be avoided, if you simply do not ASSUME someone is a certain way, from very narrow view we give of ourselves here. I'd have not have felt compelled to give you such a hard slap, if you had just let the whole sex issue go. I apologize for the harshness, but I didn't see any other way to get my point across to you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead

I do not require intent to be guessed. I communicate as I go.