RE: monogamy-hopeless?

RE: monogamy-hopeless? (Full Version)

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

Message

novicecourtesan -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/21/2007 8:18:56 PM)
HatesParisHilton: Your longer post makes quite a bit more sense than your previous post, and I appreciate that you clarified. The law degree is a mysterious thing--it doesn't necessarily teach new skills as kind of warp your mind. I can turn it off and on, though, and it generally goes on when I think an argument is imprecise or offensive in some way. I write a lot because I type really fast, but mostly, I think the legalese helps me be precise--which, on these boards, seems to be extremely important. The use of the wrong word could probably lead to a lot more problems than an overwritten response. As I said, I like to be clear. While I'm not that familiar about topping from the bottom, I don't have much intention of doing so. I have been told to be very careful and very sure about what I want, and I can see for myself that there are plenty of predators out there. I can't help it if my vanilla exterior is opinionated and my mind leaps to legal reasoning. I don't necessarily think that makes me a top and I certainly didn't come here to score any points or win any arguments. Overreacting or not, you did pose a question and when I chose not to answer, made the assumption that I was being evasive and positioning myself "on a soapbox in Central Park." If you had perhaps taken the time to be a little more clear then, I might not have been so irritated at being asked for my plan to "inspire monogamy." And while I appreciate your advice, I'm not quite sure that being opinionated on messge boards equals being a top in a relationship or in bed. If it does, then perhaps there's something you could contribute to the "strong confident subs" thread around here somewhere. The fact that I am particular about what I am looking for, have read a lot of feminist thinkers and am not afraid to argue are things do not necessarily mean that I want to dictate a sexual experience or a relationship to a dom so I can play out some fantasy, or that I am inflexible or bossy. Your advice is predicated on the assumption that I am posting here in hopes that my responses will attract a suitable dom. I hope, of course, that it may work out that way, but I think you overestimate me. I'm usually tied to my computer, and I find these threads really informative, and I like to post online. You're the first to suggest the idea that I might be topping from the bottom; I haven't seen any evidence of that in emails or anyone I've talked to. Perhaps I just want a dom who is stronger than me. But I will take it under advisement. Right now, my intent is to just learn and not jump into any situations that I might not be comfortable with. I cannot market myself for what the monogamous male dom thinks any more than I have. That does not work in online vanilla internet dating beyond a hookup and it probably does not work here. I've made it clear that I'm a novice and willing to learn in every post, and I always emphasize that I'm happy to be proven wrong. I am looking for information and there is a lot of bullshit masquerading out there. I cannot say that I won't kick and scratch when I feel cornered--whether for a misused word or for not providing an adequate answer. I have heard that d/s relationship is harder than a vanilla one, but I have also heard that they are simply different. And there will always be men who don't want to deal with lawyers, whether they practice or not, in both the d/s and vanilla worlds. (And women). And, in both worlds, submissiveness in a woman can be mistakenly perceived as being a doormat. So some things are the same. But thank you once again for your post.

HatesParisHilton -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/21/2007 8:40:42 PM)
Well, I appreciate your subsequent post quid pro quo. But at the risk of getting back to a tenet and tangent that could possibly annoy you (I hope not) ~ whether you are looking for information to help you in kink life or fnd a partner, it's half a dozen of one and six of the other. You are looking for something or would not post, no matter how fast you type (and I am envious and jealous of that, no joke). [:D] when anyone looks for something, they need to avoid putting the cart before the horse. You have posted this "here" in this section of the boards, RE a question ala maledoms and their monogamy predilections (and possibly problems). I feel it better to ask (in a pro-active sense) the same question, same thread, in a different manner, in the "ask a master" section, because 1: you are not looking for a female sub, or asking a question about the behaviours of such, your asking about male doms/tops 2: whatever you can "market" or not is irrelevant, RE where you pose this question. it's not about whether or not monog with amale dom is hopeless; it's about what can be done so it is NOT hopeless, and since a happy monog relationship with a dom male requires them to say "yes, that's desirable", I believe you'd be far better served for any reason to ask the maledoms. Espencially since for over 8 years on the net so many threads on so many boards and sites have been by femsubs stating that they can't GET maledoms to go monog. Meaning no offense to femsubs on this site, that's like asking people whom lost their homes how to get a great, safe mortgage plan. You ask the LENDER what terms they need to make you happy, not the vast array of people whom often have had less than adequate outcomes in that arena. again, wishing you the best.

sweetnsensual -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/21/2007 9:13:27 PM)
I don't think monogamy is a difficult thing for humans in general, or unnatural for us. I think it's unnatural for men to be monogamous. I remember hearing about men's built-in urge to spread their seed. Makes sense to me. I've tried searching for info on it since but there's so many search results I'm really too tired to sift through all the web pages to find it all out. So, if anyone wants to discount my comment, whatever, it won't break my heart. Someone in the earlier posts mentioned how nice it was that there were so many strong subs on this site. Now, I've heard conflicting arugments on this. Mine says that the Doms who call subs who have minds and desires and have backbones and all that are not real Doms at all and can't handle subs like that, who have some strength and will to them. Recently, another Dom told me that because I had such strong views and ideas about what a sub is and isn't, that I wasn't truly submissive. We were discussing why Doms can have multiple subs but subs can't have multiple Doms. Three guesses which side I was on and which side he was. He said that because I thought subs should be able to have multiple Doms for the reasons I listed at the time (which I can't remember right now, but oh they were good ones allright!) I wasn't a real submissive. I told him he was full of it and I called him by his full name. It was upsetting. I just hope this doesn't turn into a debate about subs having multiple Doms--that's not important, it's all about the individual person, their views, if it's right for them etc, nothing to do with me or other readers unless they're experiencing it blah blah blah. Thoughts on the strength of subs vs. ...non strengthy subs? I'm curious ETA: Btw, I liked novicecourtesan's definition of courtesan and the little history bit/famous courtesan women. Sure, there's the actual definition and then there's the personal one. If the personal works for you, then go with it. It keeps people a-guessin' [;)]

joyousslave -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/22/2007 8:19:46 AM)
i'm an older fatter slave, have seldom been without relationship my entire life, whether monogamous or polyamorous (my choice), except when I CHOSE uni-amorous (new word? :) )

venusdiva429 -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/23/2007 1:58:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: novicecourtesan "So let's see, you've just admitted that men WERE charged under adultery statutes, even though you vociferously (and sourly) asserted that this never happened. And now I'm supposed to tell you about adultery cases in China, Greece, or Rome? Read for yourself." LordandMaster, I am starting to find you very tedious, so I will assume the submissive position your ego if not your argument requires. I believe the original statement which failed to meet your exacting standards of accuracy (which you clearly cannot seem to apply to yourself) was: "Before the 20th century, virtually no man in any walk of life was expected to be monogamous. He was only expected to be discreet" I will amend that statement to read: "Before the 20th century, men were occasionally expected to be monogamous by the law and in some rare cases were prosecuted for adultery, but the MASSIVE MAJORITY of adultery laws in any culture in any time targeted and labeled women exclusively and were used to enforce horribly cruelties from abandonment to murder against disobedient wives rather than to prosecute wayward husbands, who were for the most part left alone if they were discreet." With that amendment, I apologize for any offense I may have given you and thank you for your clearly reasoned, well-supported, judgement neutral and truly constructive insights into this topic. I apologize vociferously for any sourness on my part. I hope that you find many, many, many adultery statutes enforced to your satisfaction. And, of course, I did not actually expect to provide me with noteworthy or even insignifcant "Lyman v. People" adultery cases from Greece, China, or Rome. I did not assume you threw those countries in there without factual basis or to hide empty nitpicking about one fucking sentence unrelated to my large post, to pretend you have a truly valid argument that we can all learn from instead of pointless verbal diarrhea. I am sure your factual basis is impressive and I and my law degree stand in awe of it. You have nothing more to fear from me on this subject. Oh, snap!

PhDslave -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/23/2007 1:28:51 PM)
I am monogamous.

Skier -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/23/2007 1:34:30 PM)
Me too

Lucius -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/24/2007 10:59:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: novicecourtesan 4. Whether I know a million men into monogamy or just one, I was unsure about how monogamy is viewed in bdsm, or by those who are interested in it. Notice the novice in my name. I was wondering if it is largely seen as an archaic boundary or had similar or different meanings than the vanilla. Just an offhand comment: Something to be aware of in the BDSM context. Some people are sexually monogamous but willing to "play" outside that relationship - to engage in various BDSM behaviors that do not cross certain lines (i.e. no one orgasms, or perhaps someone does but there is no actual coitus, whatever. However the people involved define "play, but no sex.") Some people are sexually open, but will only express BDSM within the context of a single "one-on-one" relationship. I bring this up because it is a nuance on the issue that is perhaps unique to BDSM, and you were asking about ways in which the matter differs in this world as opposed to the vanilla world. If the concept of a Dominant who might want to tie up and/or whip three other women at a playparty but keep His pants on until He gets home with you, is one that simply hadn't occurred to you yet, you may want to give it some thought and decide how you feel about it. Lucius Alexander House of the Palindromedary

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125