RE: "Under My protection"

RE: "Under My protection" (Full Version)

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

Message

LordODiscipline -> RE: "Under My protection" (11/7/2006 4:50:32 AM)
*You are really not understanding what I am saying -* *I do not agree with the entire premise of "protecting" someone...* It is disingenuous to believe that someone who has reached the age of majority is to be coddled and "protected" from the innanities of life OR that their "protector" is any more adept at finding someone who is suitable and/or not the alleged 'sociopath' so often stated as the reason for a protectors requisite presence. *Why would anyone want to be associated with an adult who cannot take care of themself on an emotional and intellectual level?* *I believe the entire thing to be a machination of overactive imaginations and a role playing scenario that many others are sucked in to non-consensually...* *(Personally, I would not want to be associated with anyone who required or used a protector - or - with anyone who would claim they could or should protect another in this way)* It is an incipid addition to leather which is completely fabricated from on line interaction and has not relevance except that which people (mostly those who are new and/or on line maimlyt) would believe has any pertinent import into someone's life. *Someone decides that they are a 'pervert' and suddenly there is a change in the social strata and they become bumbling fools incapable of making decisions for themself?* *And how many of these "psychotic dominants" are out there? Scare tactics and cautionary tales for children... silly rabbits, kicks are for trids.* Take responsibility for your lives - be friends to the new people (not some lofty all knowing "protector" to them) Treat them like sentient beings, instead of drooling children - and, simply stop inhibiting people's ability to live and to make the mistakes that they learn from. Please note - "absolute or not" (has anyone else ever noticed how this is the latest way for telling someone that they are 'out of line' and non-PC?) this is how I feel about it - no one has to agree. *And, Z - I am being "polite" - I have several choice names for people who behave with such disregard for reality -I just have no "tolerance" for it - nor is there any reason I should...* ~J quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *To the OP'r:* These people are idiots playing idiotic games and do not have the least amount of common sense between them - they are just interested in the role play of "damsel in distress" and the erreant knight in shining armor coming to her rescue... Everyt time I see this played out, it reminds me of Job Jacobs, who had all of these submissives convinced that he could discern a "true master" - I do not believe (and, correct me if I am wrong) that he EVER found any of them a dominant he approved of and/or that became their master... unless it was a close personal friend. I am a tad wary of statements containing absolutes - always, never, must, invariably, every, just, only... That's a pretty sweeping generalisation to draw from your anecdotal evidence, LoD. Certainly the case has been well argued here, that such an arrangement can be abused, but so can all arrangements between people. Evidence in one case is not proof in all. Others have cited evidence that the practice of "protection" can, and for some does, have responsible use. The participants are not invariably deluded nor is it required they be either neurotic submissives or psychotic Dominants. Insisting on that begins to sound merely insulting rather than mindful. What is the benefit of people pontificating on particulars within a lifestyle as varied as ours? Polite tolerance should come a little easier for us, one would think. Z.

happypervert -> RE: "Under My protection" (11/7/2006 5:44:44 AM)
quote: I believe the entire thing to be a machination of overactive imaginations and a role playing scenario that many others are sucked in to non-consensually.. I disagree with the part I've italicized above -- the folks who get sucked into it do so by their own free will and consent. It is clear there there are plenty of us whose response would be "WTF is this bs?" and walk away from them just scratching our heads at it. So in that sense I can see protection as a good way to filter out folks who don't have the same . . . um, sensibilities (and I'm using that term loosely) and so would be useful to find a compatible partner. If it makes sense to all of them they've at least got that in common, and this unusual view of the world could lend itself to having similar views on other things as well. Bottom line is I see folks who use this under my protection concept as being like goreans, golfers, republicans, and a host of other groups I just can't relate to, but they seem to get along just fine among themselves while wondering why I like the things I do. That's life!

LordODiscipline -> RE: "Under My protection" (11/7/2006 6:11:37 AM)
*NO - you are absolutely right in regard to your take on it...* I was more referring to someone who would contact a submissive in the hopes of initiating a conversation (as I have - and, without a thought to "ownership" - just for ellucidation on a point of their web page) and have them state - "You must speak to "Dominant X" prior to any conversation we might have". Out of curiosity, I contacted Dominant X and asked "WTF is wit dis ting heyya?" - and, he then ran me through a string of questions - some of which I answered in greater detail than he was comfortable with just to screw with the entire process (now that it was understood)... *And - he pronounced me "Dangerous"....* *Wrote to me later (We had IM'd) to inform me that he was "disallowing any further contact with this submissive as I was an apparent danger to her"* *I was rather miffed... as, (needless to say) I am a rather 'non-dangerous' individual...* ...unless it was to the authority he had placed onto this situation... But -initially I was being sucked in to a role playing situation they had going on.** Continuing with the process was a conscious decision which I am chuckling about to this day. ~J - The Dangerous One!

Zensee -> RE: "Under My protection" (11/7/2006 6:19:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline You are really not understanding what I am saying - I do not agree with the entire premise of "protecting" someone... It is disingenuous to believe that someone who has reached the age of majority is to be coddled and "protected" from the innanities of life OR that their "protector" is any more adept at finding someone who is suitable and/or not the alleged 'sociopath' so often stated as the reason for a protectors requisite presence. Why would anyone want to be associated with an adult who cannot take care of themself on an emotional and intellectual level? I believe the entire thing to be a machination of overactive imaginations and a role playing scenario that many others are sucked in to non-consensually... (Personally, I would not want to be associated with anyone who required or used a protector - or - with anyone who would claim they could or should protect another in this way) I believe understood you quite clearly from the first line of your first post. I hear what you are saying and know that you believe it passionately. I see the reason in it and applaud your message of self-responsibility. Sincerely. I also take issue with both the limits and prejudice of your negative opinions and the personal and confrontational way in which you have chosen to present them. Do I take it that since you quoted only the OP’s post that you didn’t bother with any of the intervening discussion? Are we talking about the straw-man example posed by the OP or about the modified and moderate examples that have appeared since? Are we talking about the same thing? quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline Someone decides that they are a 'pervert' and suddenly there is a change in the social strata and they become bumbling fools incapable of making decisions for themself? And how many of these "psychotic dominants" are out there? Scare tactics and cautionary tales for children... silly rabbits, kicks are for trids. Now this seems to be a tendency – those in this thread who see possible benefit in formal ‘protection’ mostly talk about the idea itself, in calm, respectful tones – those opposed prefer to sling mud, use playground slurs and try to paint everyone who has the gall to disagree with them as stupid or malignant. Of course if you confined your own reading to the OP’s first post there would be no reason for anyone to take this tirade personally in any way. quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline Take responsibility for your lives - be friends to the new people (not some lofty all knowing "protector" to them) Treat them like sentient beings, instead of drooling children - and, simply stop inhibiting people's ability to live and to make the mistakes that they learn from. Good point, up until the ‘drooling children’ bit. Is such hyperbole helpful? quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline Please note - "absolute or not" (has anyone else ever noticed how this is the latest way for telling someone that they are 'out of line' and non-PC?) this is how I feel about it - no one has to agree. And, Z - I am being "polite" - I have several choice names for people who behave with such disregard for reality -I just have no "tolerance" for it - nor is there any reason I should... Actually I have not noticed a trend to invoking the use of absolutes as an excuse for dismissing another’s point of view. Perhaps it is too fresh to have reached my nose. However the tired label, PC, seems to be doing a lot of service today. I find the presence of absolute terms to be an indicator, not a predictor. They switch my bullshit detector from stand-by to active. Absolutes tend to exclude possibilities, without consideration and to create barriers where none need to be. If a confrontational and insulting tone is considered polite then we have some room for disagreement still. I do not totally discount your experience or your opinion. I have said several times in this thread, that abuse is possible, even likely in such a ‘protection’ arrangement – but it is not inevitable. That isn’t just opinion it is some people’s experience. Can you tolerate the notion that people have different but equally valid experiences to yours? Z.

LordODiscipline -> RE: "Under My protection" (11/7/2006 6:54:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee I believe understood you quite clearly from the first line of your first post. I hear what you are saying and know that you believe it passionately. I see the reason in it and applaud your message of self-responsibility. Sincerely. I also take issue with both the limits and prejudice of your negative opinions and the personal and confrontational way in which you have chosen to present them. Well - if you do not like it, do not read it - but, I am not much on someone telling me to censor myself... rather a narrow view of reality and kinda like telling someone they have to paint their house a different color, because you do not think it blends in well wiht the neighborhood" Without some semblance of a 'colour of authority' to make the change forced, you are simply "peeing in the wind and getting me wet"... quote: Do I take it that since you quoted only the OP’s post that you didn’t bother with any of the intervening discussion? Are we talking about the straw-man example posed by the OP or about the modified and moderate examples that have appeared since? Are we talking about the same thing? Apparently we are not talking about the same thing - as you somehow believe there would be a shift in my viewpoint "if only I understood other's opinions more" - as though this issue has not been debated ad nauseum here and in a million other venues (OK - I am exagerating.. it is only 1/2 of one million other venues!!). quote: Now this seems to be a tendency – those in this thread who see possible benefit in formal ‘protection’ mostly talk about the idea itself, in calm, respectful tones – those opposed prefer to sling mud, use playground slurs and try to paint everyone who has the gall to disagree with them as stupid or malignant. Of course if you confined your own reading to the OP’s first post there would be no reason for anyone to take this tirade personally in any way. *Do all of the others defending the idea infer their susperior intellect by way of pointing out means and methods that are not in evidence...* *Stop posturing and preening for others - we know you have "honor and are a man of substance" - your profile states that this is so - and,, I have to believe it - right?.* *As mentioned - you do not have to like another's opinion... it is just their opinion... however, if you desire to personalize it - it then has nothing to do with the postings - just the people.* *And - I think that is considered a "Bozo-No-No" in hte world of on line posting... but, not having the ruel book handy - I could be wrong.* (Also - you might desire to realize that you are also using an absolute. Something often frowned on in proper circles!) quote: Good point, up until the ‘drooling children’ bit. Is such hyperbole helpful? *Actually - it is a visualization - and, in the history of writing such things have been found to be very effective in communicating feelings and delivering an impact to the reader... SO - "Yes"* quote: Actually I have not noticed a trend to invoking the use of absolutes as an excuse for dismissing another’s point of view. Perhaps it is too fresh to have reached my nose. However the tired label, PC, seems to be doing a lot of service today. I find the presence of absolute terms to be an indicator, not a predictor. They switch my bullshit detector from stand-by to active. Absolutes tend to exclude possibilities, without consideration and to create barriers where none need to be. MY BS detector goes into full screaming alarm when someone starts prostelyzing about "Honor" - comprende vous? I was offering an opinion (I am not sure how much more clear I might be) - and, it is "my" opinion - YOU do not have to agree with it... but, then, you also have to simply learn that "opinions" are not negotiable... they are what they are. If you expect me to believe that it is somehow "imappropriate" to hold such an opinion, then you obviously do not understand that I am a pervert - and, as such fly in the face of society which believes I should not hold that "opinion" as it is "inappropriate". And, that is an "absolute". quote: If a confrontational and insulting tone is considered polite then we have some room for disagreement still. *Son <---condescending tone to match yours)- when the day comes to pass that I require aan "Emily Post Update" from someone such as youself, I will call you and ask for it...* *Until then, please do not suppose that you are the "Grand Arbiter of Behavior" for leather (or, even for Collarme) [;)]* quote: I do not totally discount your experience or your opinion. No? Then you are simply discounting me as an adult person with a valid opinion? quote: I have said several times in this thread, that abuse is possible, even likely in such a ‘protection’ arrangement – but it is not inevitable. *OK -* *Time for you to go back and read my statements -* *No where did I mention you personally in making my opinion known... no where did I threaten your manhood (or "honor! " [;)]) by "calling you out".* *You are taking this as a personal affront because (apparently) you have invested a lot of your time trying to win some on going war in this thread...* *Here is a secret for you - I do not care!* *You can have any danged opinion you desire... no skin off my shanks...* But, do not tell me how to proceed to present mine and then demean it in your condescending and dismissive way... (That is not polite and will not be tolerated by people of proper standing! <<insert "Hrrumph">> here) quote: That isn’t just opinion it is some people’s experience. Can you tolerate the notion that people have different but equally valid experiences to yours? *Yes - but apparently you cannot....* *Get a grip man (said in my best Scottish Brogue!)* *Although, I am "applauding" you back - sincerely.* ~J

MasterDesire -> RE: "Under My protection" (11/7/2006 6:59:03 AM)
I find the statement Under Protection as a open ended statement. I feel it mis used too easly without the understanding of both sides involved. In the past I have seen more than one so called Master or Dom using the statement as a way to attempt to control more than one at the same time. I find it strange that if he is talking with a new girl that he would go to another and another. Most likley finding the one he can bs into his belief. Also how can one place someone under protection and not be able to enforce it in anyway. I see so many thinking that it is a way to control someone and not having any responsibility towards them. I feel it is used more to bs the girl into thinking he is interested as he still plays the field as many do. So many are hurt by the game players, some never come back to the life to enjoy the true ways the life should be enjoyed. I understand that this life has changed so much over the years because of the internet but it does not relieve anyone of the respect. How can you respect someone who uses another for their own fun then dumps them like the trash. But then again just my thoughts

sugarcoatedscamp -> RE: "Under My protection" (11/7/2006 2:01:58 PM)
From the sound of your post, I think you're confusing "protection" with "consideration". I've known of dominants having a few different submissives under consideration, but none of them are collared, and eventually they get weeded out for whatever reason they happen not to mesh with the dominant as well as another does. Protection, in the way that I've witnessed it, is akin to having two signatures necessary to take money out of a bank account. It doesn't mean that the protector gets to choose who is or is not the one for the submissive under their protection, it simply means that they also have an opinion that weighs in on the final decision - one that is obviously respected by the submissive in question, because she did after all ask him to be her protector. It doesn't mean that she can't make adult decisions, it simply means that she's put herself into a situation where she can also get a second opinion from someone whose primary concern is (ideally) what's best for her and her future. This can be beneficial in certain situations, for example, the slave who has been in a high-protocol house for a number of years and is now dealing with a form of culture shock at being thrust back into the vanilla world for whatever reason.

slavejali -> RE: "Under My protection" (11/7/2006 2:42:08 PM)
I think the whole protected and protector thingy just amounts to people playing out a kink they have, namley..to be a protecter or someone protected. A lot of what we do in bdsm is kink related if you think about it. It's when people associate their "kink" with how it has to be, or as a self identifier or when they try to invite other people into playing into their kink as some kinda real thing .... that it all gets weird.

Najakcharmer -> RE: "Under My protection" (11/7/2006 2:56:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I do not understand protection collars over the internet. You cannot harm a submissive over the internet via email, you cannot force her to do anything with you. Some people are emotionally vulnerable enough to need a more experienced friend/mentor in the scene to help them with safe calls or to be a reality check to make sure that they are not being abused or exploited by an unscrupulous dominant. I've done this for a number of newbies, but it's not necessary to make it a formal designation. It's more like, "Hey, I'll be your buddy and your listening ear, and if you want me to help with a reality check or a safety check, it's cool to run your prospective partners or scenes by me first to help make sure you're not getting into anything that isn't safe or healthy for you." Would I give myself the grand title of Protector or put a protection collar on this person? Naaah, not unless my friend was REALLY insecure and desperately needed that level of reassurance, or we were attending an event at which a collar would help keep them safe from unwanted advances that would make them scared and uncomfortable. In that case I'd agree to do it. It would be a strictly friendly thing for me though. If I wanted somebody in my collar or if I wanted to play with somebody, I'd negotiate for that. If I'm just willing to be a helpful friend/mentor to a newbie, then that's all there is to the relationship.

mistoferin -> RE: "Under My protection" (11/7/2006 4:00:29 PM)
fast reply~ Oh how I long for the days when you were either collared....or you weren't. With a few rare exceptions (which I still don't understand the need for or agree with) Under my Protection=Under My Thumb=If you're really that naive, pretty soon you will be Under my Belly and I will PROTECT all of your orifices by filling them full of my boy...er...uh...I mean MANhood and pretty soon you won't be naive and you will be on a message board somewhere crying about abusive Dominants.

KatyLied -> RE: "Under My protection" (11/7/2006 5:17:48 PM)
quote: I think the whole protected and protector thingy just amounts to people playing out a kink they have, namley..to be a protecter or someone protected. Yep, I call it the knight-in-shining-armor kink. If it works for those people I guess it's a good thing. But I wouldn't want to admit to any prospective that I required "protection" or that he has to go through another Dom in order to get to know me. To me that's silly.

LordODiscipline -> RE: "Under My protection" (11/7/2006 5:43:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin Oh how I long for the days when you were either collared....or you weren't. Quick reply, back at cha: YES! ~J

krikket -> RE: "Under My protection" (11/7/2006 6:02:32 PM)
These profiles remind me of the "adult" chatrooms, way back on dal net, etc., where the subs would be collared to, or under the protection, of the "room". i never could figure that out, cuz i figured they all had "control" of the o-n--o-f-f- switch, lol. Yes, there was a time i was "stalked" on line (as weird as that sounds) but all it took was a change in nick, told only to those i was close to, and a new email address, and poof -- no more stalker. They talked big about "knowing who i was and what i had done" (sorta like that movie..lol), but again... to each their own. Personally, it took me a long time to improve my self-image and gain some confidence in myself, and i wasn't about to give it up to a cyber anything. i agree with those who asked if they're the kind of person someone would want, but only the people involved can answer that. i tend to take people at face value (a rather naive trait i refuse to give up), but this could well be a case of several profiles with one person behind both. i guess if someone's picture really "hits", then my advice would be to take a chance, otherwise, i'd move on to another. cheers jimini

emdoub -> RE: "Under My protection" (11/7/2006 10:54:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Do I take it that since you quoted only the OP’s post that you didn’t bother with any of the intervening discussion? Are we talking about the straw-man example posed by the OP or about the modified and moderate examples that have appeared since? Um... straw man? I was talking about serious, actual examples of this behavior. Are there ways to do the 'protector' thing with couth? Sure there are. Was I bitching about those? Nope. quote: Now this seems to be a tendency – those in this thread who see possible benefit in formal ‘protection’ mostly talk about the idea itself, in calm, respectful tones – those opposed prefer to sling mud, use playground slurs and try to paint everyone who has the gall to disagree with them as stupid or malignant. Of course if you confined your own reading to the OP’s first post there would be no reason for anyone to take this tirade personally in any way. Oh, it's mudslinging I'm up to, eh? And it's petty, playground slurs I'm using to complain about a particular behavior. But of course - how could I have been so wrong? Shame on me for ever bringing this up... I'd never realized I was so bleedin' petty. quote: I find the presence of absolute terms to be an indicator, not a predictor. They switch my bullshit detector from stand-by to active. Absolutes tend to exclude possibilities, without consideration and to create barriers where none need to be. If a confrontational and insulting tone is considered polite then we have some room for disagreement still. I do not totally discount your experience or your opinion. I have said several times in this thread, that abuse is possible, even likely in such a ‘protection’ arrangement – but it is not inevitable. That isn’t just opinion it is some people’s experience. Can you tolerate the notion that people have different but equally valid experiences to yours? Absolute terms are indicators - of absolute attitudes. I despise lies. That' pretty absolute, and I'll stand behind it. Is that creating a barrier that you disapprove of? Okay - I'm a divisive putz, because I find the "you must talk to the dominant who owns my 'collar of protection' and charm them first' rigamarole distasteful. After all, there are subs who have fubar'ed - (not that any dom has ever made such a mistake, even in online relationships), and they need some wiser, domlier head to do their initial weeding-out, before they deal with anyone else directly. It's safer that way, y'know? Hey, they're subs - so they can't get by on simple advice, they need an additional 'flapper'. Spew on me because I don't like it. I used to enjoy regarding subs as strong individuals who liked things that complemented things that I like, and never thought of them as necessarily weaker or more vulnerable because of that - but what do I know? Yup - sometimes, I'm an absouteist. And I absolutely, unequivicably, don't like the inferrences you make about the dastardly OP. So, shame on me. Midnight Writer

slavedefender -> RE: "Under My protection" (11/8/2006 6:29:15 AM)
I think that if Sarasmilesss wants to filter through her decisions about Vladikon through an outside source, then she would be very wise to do so.

FelinePersuasion -> RE: "Under My protection" (11/29/2006 9:40:09 AM)
If you're online and you can not handle bullshit coming into your inbox and bullshit in general with out a protector I have no sympathy for said person, Getting bullshit from stuff online is a part of being online. I don't run to someone and say sir sir sir so and so online said I was fat go talk to them, or Sir Sir someone said my tits look fake go cyber beat them teach them a lesson, I just block the idiots. I don't buy into the they need protection from online bullshit and online bullies, grow up learn what block is for, or get offline. quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Some submissives really do need protection, even if it is just as an asshole filter.

cjenny -> RE: "Under My protection" (11/29/2006 4:20:44 PM)
Yikes you all are a tough group! I am actually looking for a mentor- protector -buddy call it what you will as I enter the local scene. Sure I am an adult but it is something new for me [the local BDSM groups] and I wouldn't feel comfortable going alone. That in no way means I am looking for someones permission to talk to others, just a feeling of safety and backup. wow i posted![:D]

MasterWilliam55 -> RE: "Under My protection" (12/1/2006 12:14:35 PM)
welcome cjenny..and yep, some here certainly are tough or at least opinionated. Your probably wise to seek a "mentor", however you define that person. Someone to open doors for you, meet members of your local community that might otherwise be inacceassable to you. Many folks play in private groups by invitation only and you may not meet them 0n-line or at public events very often. It also helps to have someone keep an eye on you or that you can go to if a problem developes. We use this model in the business world all the time. However, you must not play the slave to your mentor/protector. You are your own person and must stand on your own feet. But it sure helps to have a shoulder to lean on, when you need one.

mnottertail -> RE: "Under My protection" (12/1/2006 12:16:26 PM)
That is a wonderful picture. I have you on faves because of it, btw. Ron

KatyLied -> RE: "Under My protection" (12/1/2006 12:21:29 PM)
quote: I have you on faves because of it, btw. Why explain? It's much more fun if she thinks you are a creepy cyber-troller.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.492188E-02