married... (Full Version)

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



Message

ottawasubmissive -> married... (2/16/2005 8:51:48 AM)

hi there,

i am a married guy looking for a Domme to control me and treat me as Her own...is it wrong that i am married or it this common place?



MsSonnetMarwood -> RE: married... (2/16/2005 10:26:39 AM)

How can a Domme treat you as her own when your primary relationship is elsewhere?

And why would she want to commit that much ownership to you when you can not reciprocate by being exclusively hers?

I am curious how that works. Or is "own" just a buzzword that feels good?



onceburned -> RE: married... (2/16/2005 10:37:03 AM)

quote:

is it wrong that i am married or it this common place?


Kinky people married to vanilla spouses is a common problem. Like all marital problems they need to be worked out between the two people, with honesty. Have you discussed your kinky feelings with your wife? What was her reaction? How does she feel about you looking for a Domme?



femdom4u2besub -> RE: married... (2/16/2005 10:50:46 AM)

Well not to disagree with my fellow Dommes but I would pose the question...if a Domme can be married or in a primary relationship (As I am) and still have submissive relationships (As I do) why is it not feasable the other way? Or better yet if both have another primary relationship.
But I think that it must be mutually exceptable to all involved. (No behind your spouses back sort of thing). But there are times when a spouse just doesnt have the desire or the ability to fill the need. I find that I dont need to have complete control over their lives, just complete control when they are in service to me. Now a slave....thats a different sort of thing. And as Ms. Sonnet Marwood states complete ownership would be impossible.
But thats what makes it interesting...we all have our own style, needs and requirements and I think if you are sincere and honest you will be able to find the right person to serve.



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: married... (2/16/2005 11:20:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: femdom4u2besub

Now a slave....thats a different sort of thing. And as Ms. Sonnet Marwood states complete ownership would be impossible.


Why couldn't the married slave be owned completly for a limited period of time? Why must slavery be everlasting? There is a need to be owned that could be satisfied by limited periods of ownership. Why must slaves be made to feel that they must be owned forever and always without any limits to get this?

This is what I hate about the way slave is used in common BDSM parlayance.

Taggard



LadyTantalize -> RE: married... (2/16/2005 12:14:49 PM)

CLAPS**APPLAUDS**BRAVO!!!!!

Mercy praise be and many thanks to Taggard and Femdom4u2besub!!!!

It looks good to see some folks out there who are REALISTIC about practicing BDSM!!

I'm married and he's not "a submissive", but he is My boy, My slut, My submissive, and he is My equal partner and yep, he is a SLAVE TO MY SOUL and has been for the past ten years.

I've a client that I've had for four years (longer than most M/s relationships seem to be working!) and he is MY SLAVE, collared and devoted to Me, owned by Me. Yes, he is married and she knows - he's been in the "ProDomme scene" and around the lifestyle for thirty years!! (Ahhh, the stories he has are amazing!!) Actually, his wife is glad he no longer "plays the field" and she is comfortable in My ownership of him. I dictate his BDSM life and in as such, he is My slave on My terms, as well as fulfilling his need to experience slavery in his soul.

I've tried that "total slavery mindset" a few times, with the ultimate ownership ideas full of complete responsibility - yep, they usually lasted roughly four months or so. That whole format is just unrealistic for many in their daily lives. For some it works, and for them I say three cheers and fantastic. But for most, that format is not only very hard to find, it's even harder to maintain long-term!

I've had clients who show more determination, sincerity and dedication to being a "good slave" in the period of time that they are serving Me - that drive and respect for the "slavery" cannot be ignored or denied.

As for personals, I WANT a slave who has their own life and that makes them no less a slave!

I fear this constant need to put such limitations and restrictions on BDSM terminology only leads to confusion and ultimately, to disillusionment. (ummm, is that a word?) *smiles*

BDSM is as individualized as people are, and it is what we make it!

Thanks again, Taggard and FemDom for the REALISTIC BDSM logic!!

Truly,

Lady T.



femdom4u2besub -> RE: married... (2/16/2005 1:31:47 PM)

Perhaps you're right. I should think outside of my own traditional thinking.

Thanks



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: married... (2/16/2005 4:24:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsSonnetMarwood
I am curious how that works. Or is "own" just a buzzword that feels good?


Does one "own" a timeshare?

Taggard



ShiftedJewel -> RE: married... (2/16/2005 4:30:02 PM)

quote:

Does one "own" a timeshare?


Wow, what a great point, ty. I've never thought of it in that respect... I'm just sitting here staring at my screen thinking "wow, what a conscept".

You've given me an epiphany!!

lol

ty

Jewel



ProtagonistLily -> RE: married... (2/16/2005 9:22:25 PM)

quote:

hi there,

i am a married guy looking for a Domme to control me and treat me as Her own...is it wrong that i am married or it this common place?


Here are some recent threads that cover your particular question. I've already said everything I've had to say about this subject.

Married Male Submissives
Married Subs

Lily



UrMoneyIsMyMoney -> RE: married... (2/16/2005 9:52:10 PM)

We can do things she cant, or wont



SecretDomme -> RE: married... (2/17/2005 5:51:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: femdom4u2besub

Well not to disagree with my fellow Dommes but I would pose the question...if a Domme can be married or in a primary relationship (As I am) and still have submissive relationships (As I do) why is it not feasable the other way? Or better yet if both have another primary relationship.
But I think that it must be mutually exceptable to all involved. (No behind your spouses back sort of thing). But there are times when a spouse just doesnt have the desire or the ability to fill the need. I find that I dont need to have complete control over their lives, just complete control when they are in service to me. Now a slave....thats a different sort of thing. And as Ms. Sonnet Marwood states complete ownership would be impossible.
But thats what makes it interesting...we all have our own style, needs and requirements and I think if you are sincere and honest you will be able to find the right person to serve.


I think these sorts of situations can work out, but not if sexual needs are being met in this way (unless it's an open marriage and all involved are informed). Most married Dommes I know who take on a sub do not have any sexual contact with the sub as part of his service. It would depend on the motive of the sub in going outside of his marriage to get certain needs met, in my opinion.

Be well,
Julie



BeachMystress -> RE: married... (2/17/2005 6:35:06 PM)


You can not have a Domme treat you as her own. Anyone of mine is mine to mark and so forth. What would your wife say about you coming home with a black and blue bite mark on your shoulder?

Now, you can have a Domme as long as that woman is willing to accept second place in your life. Some, due to their circumstances are willing to accept such. In my opinion, the sub isn't giving the Domme anything the wife wants. The wife would probably be horrified if approached to stick something up her hubbie's ass or whip him. As long as the relationship is non sexual, I do not consider the relationship cheating. You have to decide your own personal limits as far as is oral service cheating or not. Intercourse... you're cheating on your wife. That is a part of you she probably wants (or at least considers hers) and you're giving it to someone else.

In any case, if you take a Domme and your wife doesn't know, cheating or not.. you're breaking a trust.



SweetDommes -> RE: married... (2/17/2005 9:34:09 PM)

For our purposes, we aren't interested in married subs. We want our boys to live with us, and I can't see a wife being very happy with that arrangement. However, we don't really care what others do - as long as everyone involved knows what is going on. So the Domme has to know that you are married, of course, your wife has to know that you are seeing a Domme, etc. Otherwise, it's cheating.



FelinePersuasion -> RE: married... (2/18/2005 12:34:49 AM)

I'm not married, but I am an attached woman seeking non sexual domination with permission.


That said let me speak my opinion on married seeking dom to own completely. To own someone completely is to have them totaly, you can mark bite torture do WHAT EVER you want with them theirbodies their resources* with in agree'd apon limits.* If I was a domina looking at a married man I wouldn't consider that I owned him totaly because I would have to consider what his wife would aprove of in everything I did, If I wanted to beat his ass black and blue and he went home like that would she mind, If I wanted to make him prance about in nothing but my name written all over him, would she care. I'd have to take someone elses likes dislikes and what they would tolerate into mind in EVERYTHING I did to him.


To me having to consult or wonder or question if it'd be alright with someone else is not "totaly owning" someone.



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: married... (2/18/2005 9:49:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FelinePersuasion
To me having to consult or wonder or question if it'd be alright with someone else is not "totaly owning" someone.


When one buys a plot of land, do they "totaly own" it? Even though many towns will demand consultation before certain things can be done (such as run a business or put up a windmill), do you still "totaly own" that land?

There is no such animal as "total ownership" of anything of real value. Ownership is always limited and conditional...why should ownership of a human be any less?

Taggard



Hickory -> RE: married... (2/18/2005 10:42:54 AM)

Taggart:

I love your posts. You have a clear and consistent perspective and demonstrate careful thought in your contributions.

Your land analogy has some merit, but your example could be better expressed in the context of hierarchical rights:

>>Society/ governmental rights
>>>>“Owner rights”
>>>>>>“Tenant rights”

Society establishes basic rules and considerations for the general preservation of the public good. (The windmill in your yard makes a lot of noise, preventing your neighbor from enjoying HIS property, so is not allowed).

Within that framework, owners make decisions as to how their properties are used (“Gee, Sam, that’s a really bright shade of purple you painted your house…”).

Under that, tenants get their rights (“The rent is $850 per month. No pets, and you can’t paint the house without permission. Bright purple was my mom’s favorite color…”).

Here, your analogy runs more to the "outside" Dom or Domme being, at most, a tenant.

Assuming the relationship was sanctioned by the other partner/ spouse, one should expect that parameters (“lease” agreement) would be established to the outside relationship. Even if the S/O partner never interacts with the outside D/s partner, it is incumbent on the “one in the middle” to effectively negotiate and communicate the boundaries of the outside relationship.

If the S/O does NOT want her partner to be returned to her with his rear end a different color, she has every right to expect that this limit will be respected.

On the other hand, the S/O partner should retain “eminent domain” rights to alter or nullify the “tenancy” at any point, for any reason. Imagine bringing that one to Landlord/ Tenant court…(HA)

O'course, if the outside isn't sanctioned, the "outside Dom / Domme" is a squatter and the S/O should git her shotgun!

Regards,

Hickory



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: married... (2/18/2005 11:06:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hickory

O'course, if the outside isn't sanctioned, the "outside Dom / Domme" is a squatter and the S/O should git her shotgun!



*laughing* You are certainly right...I do like that way of looking at it.

Some of the native american tribes had no concept of ownership, so I think it is important to those that like to dabble in the ownership dynamic to realize that we really are making this stuff up as we go along. Consensual ownership of humans only exists in the minds of the owner and the owned.

Taggard



GentleLady -> RE: married... (2/18/2005 8:03:49 PM)

I hate to butt in with stuff but....You are correct Taggart in that most of the Native American nations had no concept of 'ownership' but that is in relation to land ownership. They most certainly had slaves.



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: married... (2/18/2005 8:18:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GentleLady

I hate to butt in with stuff but....You are correct Taggart in that most of the Native American nations had no concept of 'ownership' but that is in relation to land ownership. They most certainly had slaves.


Really a quite fascinating bit of information...I really had no idea.

Though according to this site, the concept of slavery for them was not an "ownership" one, as demonstrated in this paragraph:

quote:


Most Native American tribal groups practiced some form of slavery before the European introduction of African slavery into North America; but none exploited slave labor on a large scale. Indian groups frequently enslaved war captives whom they used for small-scale labor and in ritual sacrifice. Most of these so-called Indian slaves tended to live, however, on the fringes of Indian society. Although not much is known about them, there is little evidence that they were considered racially inferior to the Indians who held power over them. Nor did Indians buy and sell captives in the pre-colonial era, although they sometimes exchanged enslaved Indians with other tribes in peace gestures or in exchange for their own members. In fact, the word "slave" may not even accurately apply to these captive people.


Thank you for the information, none-the-less.

Taggard



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875