food for thought: subs with subs

food for thought: subs with subs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

mixielicous -> food for thought: subs with subs (4/6/2007 1:20:23 PM)
ok well, some may know subs ordering subs has been a hot topic for me of late, and CM as a whole. [to avoid hijack, and elaborate on a specific idea] catching a glimpse of a reply in a really awesome thread in "ask a switch" called: slave's pet. The OP asks, quote: ORIGINAL: damia Okay, i'm not sure how to put this. All right, i read about a slave whose Master gave her a 'male pet' (her words). i wondered, does that make her a switch, or is it kinda like someone getting their wife a dog? This has got me so confused, because don't only doms or switches (who are being dominant) have 'pets'? It read like she was a 24/7 slave, but with a pet...how does this work?? to which she gets some replies, that make me really wonder where my desires for it come [besides emotional sadism - apparently] quote: ORIGINAL: dogthing quote: ORIGINAL: beltainefaerie While I agree that it doesn't matter so much as long as everyone is having fun, I do understand the need to quantify, classify, catagorize, etc. Some of us do it to understand others and ourselves. In any event, I love the idea that it is like getting your wife a dog. I laughed so hard at that, and I'm not quite sure why. I think it could be like that. It could also be as others have suggested and really only those playing know for sure. I guess it gives the sub a hobby and something to keep them occupied when their dom is at work or doesn't want to be bothered with them. A live-in sub who isnt lalowed much outside contact might get bored sitting around the house all day, a pet that they have to look after might take the edge off things. i am not kept in a lot [quite the opposite, work 40+ hrs outside] i AM introverted, and anti social. that coupled with a D whom works like mad [thats how you get promoted in 7 months btw] i wonder if in addition to the sadism/extange if wanting to simply be entertained, and occupied is a factor. ideas? the thread also has some great comments about how labels suck! lol

MstrssPassion -> RE: food for thought: subs with subs (4/6/2007 1:59:27 PM)
I agree with the labels part... they suck, often have multiple mixed meanings, confuse those who define/view things differently... etc etc etc but regardless as to what you want to call it... in this "lifestyle" (whatever you want to call it... insert your preferred term here) when one person takes control of the actions & activities of another, when one person trains another, when one person guides another, when one person has another serve them in a manner that is pleasing/pampering to them... one term comes to mind that most will agree with & that word used to describe that one in this authoritative role wouldn't be slave

AquaticSub -> RE: food for thought: subs with subs (4/6/2007 2:16:11 PM)
Sometimes I consider asking Valyraen if I can have a pet. But then I remember how much work it is taking care of two cats and serving him. Whatever perks I might get from having a pet serve me, I don't want to deal with the responsiblities towards the new sub. Plus, I just don't think I'd be very good at it. [:)] That said, I know it works for some. I don't know if makes them a switch, but I would say they are being dominant in relationship to the other person and fulfilling the role of dominant for that person.

MissyRane -> RE: food for thought: subs with subs (4/6/2007 2:20:31 PM)
oh if only everything would be just black & white..no gray areas what a perfect world that would be, but then there wouldn't be any fun either[>:]

Wildfleurs -> RE: food for thought: subs with subs (4/6/2007 2:24:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mixielicous i am not kept in a lot [quite the opposite, work 40+ hrs outside] i AM introverted, and anti social. that coupled with a D whom works like mad [thats how you get promoted in 7 months btw] i wonder if in addition to the sadism/extange if wanting to simply be entertained, and occupied is a factor. ideas? the thread also has some great comments about how labels suck! lol It could be boredom, it could be a desire for items (the guy you had that arrangement with was going to buy you stuff in exchange for attention), or a genuine desire to dominate someone else (or top them or whatever word you wanna use that you feel is appropriate). The thing I truely find perplexing about all of these threads is how distasteful the word switch seems to be. Locally in my scene there are lots of switches and its considered a good thing, not some word to distance oneself from. I can't quite understand the need to create new and confusing terminology that basically means... I'm a switch. C~

proudsub -> RE: food for thought: subs with subs (4/6/2007 2:26:55 PM)
Years ago when i had an online dominant, one day after about a year into the relationship, he told me he had a gift for me and to add "donna" to my IM list and to turn on her cam. She was to be my sister sub, but when he allowed it i could dominate her, could ask her to do anything i wanted. I tried dominating her in order to please him, but just couldn't do it, wasn't my thing, so we ended up just being sister subs for awhile.[:o]

spanklette -> RE: food for thought: subs with subs (4/6/2007 3:50:40 PM)
I despise the idea of "here use this pet while I'm gone." Not because it indicates the submissive is a switch, but that they can't do their own thing for a while. And who is this pet that is to be put in a house like a toy in a play pen? I know this post may seem a little harsh, but it bothers me to no end. If all parties are accepting of the situation...Great! I'm glad for them, but I just don't feel the need to distract myself with a human "toy". That being said, I enjoy play partners, Tops, bottoms, switches, and any other label that you would like to choose. I just don't care for the whole "I am not a person without another person here to validate my existence" attitude. Edited to add: I don't mean to be rude to you mixielicious...it's the situation that gets under my skin. I've seen plenty of submissives who have "pets" and still don't change their label. And, if their happy with it than so am I.

ownedgirlie -> RE: food for thought: subs with subs (4/6/2007 4:43:52 PM)
~ Fast Reply ~ There was a "boy" who came to Master and I. He wished to serve us. Master thought it would be a good idea for two reasons: 1) To assist me by doing my chores so that my time would be freed up to focus on Master more; 2) To teach me to direct others, and to accept the service of others, as it is something I struggled with in the past Nowhere in there was there anything about sending me off to play to get out of my Master's hair. He wants more of me, not less of me, hence the reason for the extra help. I found this to be quite a gift from him, and accepted such a gift with gratitude. What did we call this boy? We call him my pet. And I actually DID look at him as a little dog because he loved that and got off on that. It was short-lived, but it did exist for awhile, and for none of the reasons so rudely mocked about in the various posts of late. He was not my submissive; as he ultimately reported to my Master. But I was his caretaker, and I directed what chores he did, under the supervision of my Master. This did not make me a switch, although if it did, so what. It made me a slave who utilized the tools given to me by my Master so I could serve him better. It also made me my Master's student, so I could better understand how to request service from another person. Pet is really just a term, folks. I am many things to my Master - slave, student, love, companion, pet, toy, fuck hole, whore, slut, etc. Surely if someone were to pick just one term and define me as that, they would be incorrect and missing the big picture. When referring to the boy who served me as a "pet," that was just one way of referencing him. He was also a submissive, cuckold, and servant, among other things. But he did look cute in his little doggy collar, and he enjoyed being in it. "Pet" made him feel good, so pet he was.

spanklette -> RE: food for thought: subs with subs (4/6/2007 4:58:38 PM)
I hope you don't think that my post was reffering to the label "pet" in my little rant. I fall into so many categories and "pet" is one of them...it's just that "little girl" is the dominating category, so to speak. BTW, your pet sounds like a healthy example of the OP's point.[:)]

ownedgirlie -> RE: food for thought: subs with subs (4/6/2007 5:14:43 PM)
It's all good, spanklette. I was just referring to the general mood as of late, where circumstances not understood tend to be mocked, rather than discussed. It's a "pet" peeve of mine, har har har....

FukinTroll -> RE: food for thought: subs with subs (4/6/2007 5:40:03 PM)
Mixi no matter how submissive someone is, they still know that stuff has to get done and someone has to have their stuff together. Why would it not be the sub that has it the most together to take control while the D is away? When people start spouting you’re not a sub/slave because.... I want to slap the stupid out of them. Just because they are not within someone else’s box of submission does not mean they are not within another’s. Alpha sub/slaves do not need to be tops, dominant, switches, or any other label you want to stick on it. They are the most capable of governing the environment within the letter of the D's wishes. It is not some wicked bitch with a whip that is going to beat the Jesus out of you until you get it right (no matter how hot you think that is). He/she is the one that the others can defer to and they can be instructed by.

myobedience -> RE: food for thought: subs with subs (4/6/2007 6:08:45 PM)
I'd like to add a way different perspective... It's been said by many in and out of D/s that I am a submissive personality, but it has been within a D/s relationship that I have found being submissive to alot of people is not my calling, rather being assertive, strong and determined ~ yes dominant, are traits I must use with those who want to control me ~ the ones I have allowed in subltle ways most of my life. This being said, if I were given a "pet," female or male, and told I could do anything I wished with them one day a week ~~ I'd have a housekeeper, no strings attached. I would have the ability to manage a housekeeper to properly work in Sir's house and keep it up to my standards in cleaniness. I am Sir's submissive, given a submissive for what ever use I want, so the pet becomes my housekeeper. Doesnt make me a switch.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: food for thought: subs with subs (4/6/2007 7:03:44 PM)
My answer remains what I put into your LJ- I think for you that you're trying to find an easy way to avoid the issues with your dom and your relationship and it's going to become a more serious problem over time. I will add that I think part of it is also craving the attention and adoration. This is for you. For others- there are a myriad of reasons, all really the same reasons any dom would want any sub.

barefootprincess -> RE: food for thought: subs with subs (4/6/2007 7:42:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FukinTroll Alpha sub/slaves do not need to be tops, dominant, switches, or any other label you want to stick on it. They are the most capable of governing the environment within the letter of the D's wishes. It is not some wicked bitch with a whip that is going to beat the Jesus out of you until you get it right (no matter how hot you think that is). He/she is the one that the others can defer to and they can be instructed by. Hello, Doesnt this make the alpha sub the Dom then? If he/she is giving the orders/instructions to be deferred to? Maybe the dom doesnt have all the time to devote to a relationship if a second switch is required to tend to the small stuff...? bfp

FukinTroll -> RE: food for thought: subs with subs (4/6/2007 7:55:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barefootprincess quote: ORIGINAL: FukinTroll Alpha sub/slaves do not need to be tops, dominant, switches, or any other label you want to stick on it. They are the most capable of governing the environment within the letter of the D's wishes. It is not some wicked bitch with a whip that is going to beat the Jesus out of you until you get it right (no matter how hot you think that is). He/she is the one that the others can defer to and they can be instructed by. Hello, Doesnt this make the alpha sub the Dom then? If he/she is giving the orders/instructions to be deferred to? Maybe the dom doesnt have all the time to devote to a relationship if a second switch is required to tend to the small stuff...? bfp Do you let a dog piss in your shoes?

barefootprincess -> RE: food for thought: subs with subs (4/6/2007 8:00:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FukinTroll quote: ORIGINAL: barefootprincess quote: ORIGINAL: FukinTroll Alpha sub/slaves do not need to be tops, dominant, switches, or any other label you want to stick on it. They are the most capable of governing the environment within the letter of the D's wishes. It is not some wicked bitch with a whip that is going to beat the Jesus out of you until you get it right (no matter how hot you think that is). He/she is the one that the others can defer to and they can be instructed by. Hello, Doesnt this make the alpha sub the Dom then? If he/she is giving the orders/instructions to be deferred to? Maybe the dom doesnt have all the time to devote to a relationship if a second switch is required to tend to the small stuff...? bfp Do you let a dog piss in your shoes? Have to ask why, would you?? And no i dont/wont let a dog piss in my shoe, and certainly not troll piss in my shoe either..s

FukinTroll -> RE: food for thought: subs with subs (4/6/2007 8:04:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barefootprincess Have to ask why, would you?? And no i dont/wont let a dog piss in my shoe, and certainly not troll piss in my shoe either..s So if the D isn't there and the dog attempts to piss in your shoe what do you do?

barefootprincess -> RE: food for thought: subs with subs (4/7/2007 8:43:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FukinTroll quote: ORIGINAL: barefootprincess Have to ask why, would you?? And no i dont/wont let a dog piss in my shoe, and certainly not troll piss in my shoe either..s So if the D isn't there and the dog attempts to piss in your shoe what do you do? Thanks , Did take a bit to figure this out..s And i have moved my shoes!

MstrssPassion -> RE: food for thought: subs with subs (4/7/2007 10:51:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FukinTroll So if the D isn't there and the dog attempts to piss in your shoe what do you do? ahhhh but you have reduced deferring to the , by he being the one who designs & controls the actions within the dynamic to be that of one being micro-managed to the point that one (the sub/slave) can't think, act or react on their own. This is an entirely different subject. As to an alpha... at least in the manner that most I interact with socially & personally... the alpha is placed in a position of authority but they are only acting on the behalf & wishes of the dominant that they & the others serve. Interaction between the submissives in a house is not an uncommon thing but it is also not a required activity. In the cases where the interaction between the subs becomes a bit "friendly" this too has been allowed &/or designated by the dominant. The situation being described by the OP is that she has made contact with (the sub contacted her) & she continued contact after her dominant granted her permission to do so. At some point they took the offer up that this man would submit to her, provide material gifts to her & that the dominant would gain in the material asset but the training, guidance & control of the individual would be designed by her & his only involvement was telling her the limits to which she could carry out these activities. Am I following this story accurately so far? If so... then she is acting out every aspect of taking the role of being a dominant within the interaction between herself & the sub she would be in control of. The dominant doesn't seem to play any role in this other than placing some limits on how far she can take things. The interaction between her & this other sub would be far different in this manner than between an alpha & a beta that served the same dominant. The more I look at this story it just seems that she, a sub/slave would only be role-playing or even topping in order to act out some aggressive &/or sadistic tendencies & benefit also in material gain. Just because she acts them out it doesn't mean they will transform her into being a full time dominant or even a switch... but that is unknown until she actually does so... it could awaken something in her that she hasn't even considered yet.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125