orfunboi
Posts: 1223
Joined: 10/22/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: subslaveb0y I wrote a big long response message to this, but she blocked me before I had to respond (last word syndrom, I believe). Rather than waste it, I thought I'd post what I wrote on this board, in case anyone is interested or wants to provide feedback. I've used this website for a while now, and I frequently read the board, but I've never posted, so I guess I can compensate now by posting the following overly long response: The whole reason I tend to emphasize developing a l/t, meaningful relationship is that I want to distinguish myself from those some subs who just want a cheap thrill or "a quick, easy way to get off." That's specifically what I don't want to be portrayed as... That aside, are you really going to defend those dominant females seeking "generous money pigs" or "pocketbook slaves"? Yes, as long as there are people out there that seek them. What they seek is illegal and is specifically against the rules of this website. They threaten the very existence of this website and are harming the d/s community. Who cares whether some guys get off to it? They're part of the problem as well. I'm sure the mods can handle any TOS violations. I don't really have a problem with pro domination -- as you said, these people might need specific equipment -- not to say, though, that someone needs all kinds of fancy gadgets to dominate. There's a website, frugaldomme.com, that might interest you, that proves my point. If you don't want to see a pro, that's fine, don't see one. But don't start telling them what kind of equipment they should be using. There are men out there who like the hot outfits and nice toys, why are you trying to ruin life for them? There's something subtly contradictory in there being so many individuals seeking "financially secure" live-in slaves. If what these dominants truly seek is just a slave, someone to serve them 24/7, why does it matter whether or not this slave has a nice portfolio? THAT is what is actually amusing here -- the original notion of a slave is basically someone who has no money, who is owned by someone with a lot of money -- not the other way around. So they should become a support system for unemployed slaves? Sorry, but people have a right to expect prospective partners to be self supporting, if that is what they want. I sure as hell would not hook up with someone who could not support herself and I wouldn't expect someone else too. I hope to see, as time goes on, more *true dominants* to emerge into the scene. If these individuals are intelligent and sophisticated -- as I require in a dominant -- they might already possess the means to support as many slaves as they desire, without resorting to anything illegal. To date, I seen very few profiles along these lines. Try getting off the internet and going out into the scene, there are a lot of *true dominants* out there. Although few male or female that I've met want a houseful of slaves they have to support. Not that owning a slave should really require that much funding, again... that's what's really laughable here... the whole notion of a slave is someone on whom you spend as little money as possible to support his or her existence... otherwise, people would never have used slaves in the first place! Do you pay bills? Own a home? I don't know... do I really seem that unreasonable here? It is pretty funny, in the end... strange times. Yea, you do.
|