Insecurity as a motive? (Full Version)

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



Message

toservez -> Insecurity as a motive? (10/2/2007 1:00:31 PM)

When I was on the other side looking I was communicating with a nice man a few messages and then he wrote basically in essence this:

"My slave will not talk to another male unless I approve or is absolutely necessary. You would for example always choose a female cashier over a male one if there is an option."

Now I do not think I would be in the minority to call this more of a trust issue then what he thought was enjoyment of exercising significant control.

We all have insecurities hopefully minor and inconsequential but have anyone done or been in a situation where these insecurities cause motives of a directive or how you want to live life to go too far? What is too far in indulging them, is it ok if your other has no problem with it or because the cause is deeper it just needs to be addressed?



ExSteelAgain -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/2/2007 1:37:06 PM)

I think it is a sign of weakness when a sub/slave is forbidden to talk with other males. I would trust her to talk to others, but also to stop talking when it appeared it was an inappropriate conversation.



AquaticSub -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/2/2007 1:39:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: toservez

"My slave will not talk to another male unless I approve or is absolutely necessary. You would for example always choose a female cashier over a male one if there is an option."

Now I do not think I would be in the minority to call this more of a trust issue then what he thought was enjoyment of exercising significant control.



While I think it could go either way, it rings to me of isolation and insecurity. I would have to know more about the situation and what he would approve or disapprove of before I would apply it to a specific situation though.



LadyLynx -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/2/2007 1:58:26 PM)

well I don't know about the whole cashier thing, but I have heard that it also has to do with the sub feeling uncomfortable around other men.



Celeste43 -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/2/2007 1:59:39 PM)

Unless you're normal style is flirtacious and he wanted to change that, which of course being online he can't know, then that's just stupid. What if you're buying something heavy like a 50lb bag of dog food? You should pick a petite female cashier who can't help you get it in and out of the cart over a stronger man who can do that for you? That's just weird.




subsfaith -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/2/2007 2:01:24 PM)

Who said this was an insecurity issue?  I see nothing in the original statement:

"My slave will not talk to another male unless I approve or is absolutely necessary. You would for example always choose a female cashier over a male one if there is an option."

All I see is a demonstration of strict control.  And what an excellent method of control it is.  Everytime his slave is out of the house, his direction will be a constant reminder of who and what she is.

There will be others who will do something like this because of insecurities, and clearly, this may be one of those times, but to completely dismiss it as purely for insecurity reasons would, in my opinion very very narrow minded.

Faith

:: smiles ::



ExSteelAgain -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/2/2007 2:04:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subsfaith

Who said this was an insecurity issue?  I see nothing in the original statement:

"My slave will not talk to another male unless I approve or is absolutely necessary. You would for example always choose a female cashier over a male one if there is an option."

All I see is a demonstration of strict control.  And what an excellent method of control it is.  Everytime his slave is out of the house, his direction will be a constant reminder of who and what she is.

There will be others who will do something like this because of insecurities, and clearly, this may be one of those times, but to completely dismiss it as purely for insecurity reasons would, in my opinion very very narrow minded.

Faith

:: smiles ::



You order a slave not to talk with half of the population because of what? No eye contact also?



toservez -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/2/2007 2:32:03 PM)

quote:

"My slave will not talk to another male unless I approve or is absolutely necessary. You would for example always choose a female cashier over a male one if there is an option."


I was using this as just an example although I am personally interested in reactions to this as when I originally read this I basically said thanks but no thanks. In fact this kind of is my question are things in general that are more motivated by insecurity ok if the other person does not mind or even gets something out of them on some level or does unhealthy insecurity motivations are just playing with fire.



LadyHugs -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/2/2007 4:16:17 PM)

Dear toservez, Ladies and Gentlemen;
 
In rare cases would I dream of iscolating a slave from another person.  Iscolation is something that a controller and or insecure individual would use as to keep a person from others and or information, knowledge and or 'second opinions', support and or such. 
 
This issue has been covered by Dr. Phil show several times and "Man Camp" is showing how men have used all kinds of ploys as to be in control and there is no trust in another person.
 
All to often, people confuse domineering, bully, terror/threats/negatives, force of violence, emotional and mental 'mind games' as to crush another's spirit and freedoms into more of a prisoner rather than a submissive/slave in the modern sense; for Dominant behavior.  As a Dominant, the idea is trusting the slave/submissive to handle affairs in an adult manner and trusting the judgment of slaves/subs as they are very talented in many cases.  A Dominant who trusts their slave/submissives, will not mind one bit if their slave/submissives act freely among the rest of humanity and know should someone be disrespectful and cruel to them and or assume to much--they know I will do what I must to see that corrected.
 
Trust goes both ways.  A Dominant is not a baby-sitter, a prison guard or warden.  A Dominant shouldn't have to be negative, a threat and or a coward behind insecure and domineering behavior and or stoop to the level of childish behavior that should have been out grown once graduated from kindergarden.
 
Just some thoughts.
 
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
Lady Hugs



KnightofMists -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/2/2007 5:35:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subsfaith

Who said this was an insecurity issue?  I see nothing in the original statement:

"My slave will not talk to another male unless I approve or is absolutely necessary. You would for example always choose a female cashier over a male one if there is an option."



I agree.... what the statement shows is nothing more than a required behavior.  The motivation for this required behavior is one we can only speculate on.  Yes... one of the motivations might be rooted in insecurity... but there are other motivations that are not so negative that could result in this behavioral requirement... in fact the motivations could be rather positive.




PsychoticWolf -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/2/2007 5:42:19 PM)

I've never gone that far to do something like that, but I do see where someone would come from. Say for instance you've lost people you're close to because they either cheated on them, or he has a very high jealous streak.

Either way, I don't think he should ban a person from speaking to half the population. If say a random male you were talking to started going too far while he was around, that would be a more appropriate situation.



downkitty -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/2/2007 6:04:41 PM)

Hi everyone. This is my first post here. :)

I think there could be several different reasons for the above "rule," especially at the start of a relationship or potential relationship. When my Master and I first became involved, he was much more strict than he is now. There were random rules that came and went that I could see no reason or purpose for. Looking back, I believe there was a fair amount of testing going on, looking for limits/boundaries, finding a comfort zone, and just plain asserting his dominance and ownership of me. After four years together, he knows I will do as he wishes, whether I understand the reasoning behind it or not. Sometimes, it's just plain "because thats what I want," and he wants to be sure I will obey. As far as I am concerned, I am here to serve him, whatever his pleasure is, be it sexual, mundane, domestic, etc. Perhaps the potential Dom was insecure or looking to isolate a girl from any other forms of support.  Perhaps he was throwing out a random, difficult directive which would inconvenience you as a means to see how much you were willing to submit.

As for the specific rule, I have a little experience with something similar. I used to work in a secondary, long-term treatment facility for women between the ages of 18 and 38. It was not a locked facility, and the residents came and went (in pairs or more) with relative ease, as long as they signed out and made all the mandatory check-ins. Many girls, especially younger or newer girls, were put on "no male contact" at times. It was very effective in helping her to define or redefine herself if she only seems to see herself through a guy's eyes. These were girls who would be anything the guy in front of them seemed to want, and their whole personality would change depending on which guy happened to be standing in front of them at the moment. Be taking the guys out of the equasion, the girl was forced to be herself. I'm not saying this is the reason for the rule, I'm just saying there is at least one legitimate (IMO) use for such a rule.

Respectfully,

Amy




RRafe -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/2/2007 6:59:18 PM)

I think I would be wrong to be with anyone with that attitude.

It would mean living in a state of total paranoia and distrust-how tragic.



Koala -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/2/2007 8:50:33 PM)

I can usually sense insecurity a mile away, and it sends me running. I'm not one to have much of a stomach for clingy, desperate, or needy people in my life. Feeling vulnerable from time to time is natural... feeling that you need someone else to make you whole is just scary.



RRafe -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/2/2007 10:24:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Koala

I can usually sense insecurity a mile away, and it sends me running. I'm not one to have much of a stomach for clingy, desperate, or needy people in my life. Feeling vulnerable from time to time is natural... feeling that you need someone else to make you whole is just scary.


That kind usually seems to want to suck something out of another. Which is suffocating.



celticlord2112 -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/2/2007 10:53:35 PM)

quote:

You would for example always choose a female cashier over a male one if there is an option."


Only because the female ones are (generally) nicer to look at! [:D]



subsfaith -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/5/2007 9:08:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExSteelAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: subsfaith

Who said this was an insecurity issue?  I see nothing in the original statement:

"My slave will not talk to another male unless I approve or is absolutely necessary. You would for example always choose a female cashier over a male one if there is an option."

All I see is a demonstration of strict control.  And what an excellent method of control it is.  Everytime his slave is out of the house, his direction will be a constant reminder of who and what she is.

There will be others who will do something like this because of insecurities, and clearly, this may be one of those times, but to completely dismiss it as purely for insecurity reasons would, in my opinion very very narrow minded.

Faith

:: smiles ::



You order a slave not to talk with half of the population because of what? No eye contact also?


Me?  No, I am the s-type half of our relationship, but I can see that  there are many reasons I can see for issuing such an order, the first one being an exercise in control.  Would you question an order to kneel three times a day?  Just because you don't see why, doesn't mean there is perfectly good motivation behind it.  The same goes with no eye contact, some people like that level of control, some will have a different motivation.

Faith



velvetears -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/5/2007 10:45:09 AM)

FR

Someone who would give a directive like that would not be someone i would want to become involved with.  i do think it speaks of their insecurity or why would they make that a rule?  i find insecurity very unappealing in a dominant.  Relationships, any kind, grow and prosper in the soil of trust not insecurity.  What's next?  i just don't have time to cater to someones irrational fears. 



Owner4SexSlave -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/5/2007 11:05:01 AM)

While one example is not enough to judge if the Dom/Master is reacting out of insecurity.    One this is for certain, it will show as a pattern of behavior in the rules made and if his imagination runs wild at times, where punishment is dished out when there was no offense at all.   It's a little tricky for a sub/slave that has never served an insecure Dom/Master to quicky spot.   Often certain qualities of insecurity are mistaken for confidence, strength and caring.

The example you gave is enough to give anybody a red flag, and for them to ask more questions and delve deeper into the mindset of a prospective Dom/Master.

The insecurities become masked with rules, protocals, excuses and all else fails simply because they are Master.  You know the don't question me card gets played.



CreativeDominant -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/5/2007 11:47:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subsfaith

Who said this was an insecurity issue?  I see nothing in the original statement:

"My slave will not talk to another male unless I approve or is absolutely necessary. You would for example always choose a female cashier over a male one if there is an option."

All I see is a demonstration of strict control.  And what an excellent method of control it is.  Everytime his slave is out of the house, his direction will be a constant reminder of who and what she is.

There will be others who will do something like this because of insecurities, and clearly, this may be one of those times, but to completely dismiss it as purely for insecurity reasons would, in my opinion very very narrow minded.

Faith

:: smiles ::



I agree.  Yes, it is true that insecurity or jealousy or domineering-because-he-can may be at the root of it, it could just as easily be one way of his instituting his control over his slave's/submissive's actions. 

The OP mentioned that the dominant that stated this was speaking of a slave and not a submissive...and speaking in generalities rather than specifics....I think that many slave owners on here would agree to the statement that in their dynamic, they control more aspects of their partner's behavior than dominants who hold submissives. 

But even if it is a submissive we are talking about rather than a slave, that does not take away from the viewpoint that this may just be one way of ingraining his control over her in her mind and not necessarily a reflection of insecurity or jealousy or pompous behavior on his part.

If someone disagrees with this level of control, then they are free in the getting-to-know-you stage and in the negotiation stage to state that and give their reasons.  They also have the right to believe where inside the person it comes from...but that doesn't necessarily mean they are right.  Dr. Phil may have a lot of great things to say and a lot of great insights but let's not forget that we are dealing with D/s dynamics and NOT vanilla ones.  The things a dominant chooses to do to control his submissive may not have the same motivations behind them as when a supposedly equal vanilla partner attempts to control their supposedly equal vanilla partner.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125