RE: Insecurity as a motive?

RE: Insecurity as a motive? (Full Version)

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

Message

Stephann -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/5/2007 12:55:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub 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. See, I agree here. It probably is a character flaw on the part of the dominant. Having said that, I can reasonably say there's situations or reasons to approach a relationship this way (though most of them would be temporary.) For example, if I were interested in asserting a very specific form of male dominance (i.e. male supremacy) over my slave, cutting male contact from her life for a period could then serve as a transition period; after three or six months, I start requiring her to be obedient to men in general. This isn't a common dynamic, and usually would be something the submissive in question would state is something he/she wishes to engage in first. Someone from an Islamic background, too, would probably understand this from a cultural and social perspective; but again, it's repugnant to most of us in Western countries. As Amy, KoM, and others have pointed out, there could be healthy (or at the least, reasonable) reasons for such an expectation. The fact that the man would make this expectation clear in his initial statements suggest that he's looking for someone who would share his tastes and interests. He certainly doesn't deserve to be burnt in effigy. Regards, Stephan

Dmsc -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/5/2007 12:59:21 PM)
Sounds to me that if a Dominant is going to restrict his sub from talking with other men he has some serious trust issues. Part of having a successful D/s, M/s relationship is trusting one another. If you are unable to trust your sub or Master then why are you together in the first place? This is true for any relationship. Now if the sub/slave is flirting with other men then I would be having a serious talk with her and setting appropriate behavior.

toservez -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/5/2007 1:12:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub 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. See, I agree here. It probably is a character flaw on the part of the dominant. Having said that, I can reasonably say there's situations or reasons to approach a relationship this way (though most of them would be temporary.) For example, if I were interested in asserting a very specific form of male dominance (i.e. male supremacy) over my slave, cutting male contact from her life for a period could then serve as a transition period; after three or six months, I start requiring her to be obedient to men in general. This isn't a common dynamic, and usually would be something the submissive in question would state is something he/she wishes to engage in first. Someone from an Islamic background, too, would probably understand this from a cultural and social perspective; but again, it's repugnant to most of us in Western countries. As Amy, KoM, and others have pointed out, there could be healthy (or at the least, reasonable) reasons for such an expectation. The fact that the man would make this expectation clear in his initial statements suggest that he's looking for someone who would share his tastes and interests. He certainly doesn't deserve to be burnt in effigy. Regards, Stephan I agree with all of this. What I am not questioning is not if an order like this has some validity or purpose for one or both in a relationship because I certainly do see that, it is if orders like this come mostly if not all from trust/insecurity issues can it still be good for the relationship? The actual example I used for instance this person also had told me in a message before that his ex had cheated on and left him for another man. Lin

celticlord2112 -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/5/2007 1:22:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: toservez What I am not questioning is not if an order like this has some validity or purpose for one or both in a relationship because I certainly do see that, it is if orders like this come mostly if not all from trust/insecurity issues can it still be good for the relationship? Anything motivated by insecurity/lack of trust is inimical to a healthy relationship. Actions which are otherwise healthy will be made unhealthy if they spring from insecurity as a motive. If there is insecurity in a relationship, it needs to be confronted, brought forward, and (hopefully) overcome. Allowed to fester, it will destroy the relationship.

Stephann -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/5/2007 1:30:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: toservez The actual example I used for instance this person also had told me in a message before that his ex had cheated on and left him for another man. Lin Hi Lin, Yep, that's insecurity driven IMO. Then again, lots of insecure people engage in relationships for good or evil. C'est la vie. Stephan

Owner4SexSlave -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/5/2007 1:39:26 PM)
I wonder if there are any insecure paranoid nut jobs out there, that insist their slave covers her head with tin foil to avoid mind probes by male alien's looking to inbreed with the human race?

Dmsc -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/6/2007 12:57:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: toservez quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub 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. See, I agree here. It probably is a character flaw on the part of the dominant. Having said that, I can reasonably say there's situations or reasons to approach a relationship this way (though most of them would be temporary.) For example, if I were interested in asserting a very specific form of male dominance (i.e. male supremacy) over my slave, cutting male contact from her life for a period could then serve as a transition period; after three or six months, I start requiring her to be obedient to men in general. This isn't a common dynamic, and usually would be something the submissive in question would state is something he/she wishes to engage in first. Someone from an Islamic background, too, would probably understand this from a cultural and social perspective; but again, it's repugnant to most of us in Western countries. As Amy, KoM, and others have pointed out, there could be healthy (or at the least, reasonable) reasons for such an expectation. The fact that the man would make this expectation clear in his initial statements suggest that he's looking for someone who would share his tastes and interests. He certainly doesn't deserve to be burnt in effigy. Regards, Stephan I agree with all of this. What I am not questioning is not if an order like this has some validity or purpose for one or both in a relationship because I certainly do see that, it is if orders like this come mostly if not all from trust/insecurity issues can it still be good for the relationship? The actual example I used for instance this person also had told me in a message before that his ex had cheated on and left him for another man. Lin I don't see how it could be healthy. His insecurities will be the downfall of his relationship unless he corrects them.

littlebitxxx -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/6/2007 3:23:03 AM)
I wonder if his insecurity and trust issues is what led him to believe he was a Dominant in the first place? Sometimes it seems as if the ones who wish to exert the most control are the ones that didn't have control in their own lives, so must exercise it with a sub in order to overcome what they feel is a weakness. A little boy in a big boy's body. And by having a sub willing to obey and fulfill every whim satisfies the control craving that he may have been lacking previously. Just some musings here. I have run into a few of these that use the "it's all about me" to assuage their own personal insecurities, more as a bolster than Dominance.

Bobkgin -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/6/2007 5:16:07 AM)
To no one in particular: What I find fascinating is how many people are insecure with the unknown. One sentence from one man has produced prodigious amounts of psycho-babble. Some people are so insecure with the unknown, they have to transform the situation into a known one by filling in the blanks out of their own imagination despite knowing nothing more about the conversation or the individual who spoke. Concepts like "benefit of the doubt", "innocent till proven guilty", "tolerance" or even admitting "not enough information to judge" get tossed out in favour of personal prejudices and bigotries. Curious how many who do not want to be judged by personal prejudice or bigotry are so quick to use these 'tools' to judge others based on nothing more than one sentence.

gypsygrl -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/6/2007 6:05:59 AM)
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." Personally, I'm not put off by the content of the directive. I don't generally talk to men and if there's something I need to take care of, like seeing a doctor, I seek out women. I've learned to fake it in a lot of situations, like talking to a cashier or at work where men can't be avoided, but thats pretty stressful depending on the nature of the interaction. If its brief and instrumental, I can get through it without much thought. If its extended, its best for me to find a woman to deal with. If my Master were to suddendly give me this rule, I'd be like, "when have I been talking to men?" and then would probably be relieved because I'd have a good reason for not talking to men, would no longer have to fake it, and could stop feeling self-conscious about having ruled out half the population as potential casual conversation partners. Not too long ago, he told me he didn't want to see any soda in my apartment, and I was like, "huh? I don't drink soda and only have it on hand for when him and his wife come over and as a treat for my um." Being told not to talk to men would be like that...taking a pre-existing tendency and refining it. Early on, when we first started talking, me and my Master talked about protocol for going to play parties. Basically, I was to stick close to him, and not talk to anyone or leave his side without permission. I was fine with that and didn't see it as sign of insecurity. I was so happy with this, it never dawned on me to question his motives. As a rule, I try not to question motives but focus on the consequences of rule x or y on my well being. Motives are theoretical in nature, and its almost impossible to verify a hypothesis concerning them. Consequences, however, are much easier to evaluate. The consequence of the rule in question for me would be neglible and would have little effect on how isolated I am...for someone else, particularly a gregarious, outgoing woman who talks to other women and men with equal abandon, it could be suffocating.

Bobkgin -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/6/2007 8:35:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gypsygrl As a rule, I try not to question motives but focus on the consequences of rule x or y on my well being. Motives are theoretical in nature, and its almost impossible to verify a hypothesis concerning them. Consequences, however, are much easier to evaluate. That's brilliant. Thank you Gypsy [:)]

angelic -> RE: Insecurity as a motive? (10/6/2007 9:10:40 AM)
For me it is the timing of the instruction. I understand that it is a good thing to sort of put things on the table in the beginnning. The instruction itself is not something i have a problem with...it is the timing of it. The timing of the instruction or potential instruction shows (in my opinion) a certain amount of insecurity. If the instruction came after a first face-to-face meeting and we were to a point of discussing the 'relationship' and where we both think it should go, and he said "my slave will not talk to another male unless I approve or is absolutely necessary"....Since i had already decided this was someone i was interested in pursuing a relationship with, I would be able to make an informed decision as to whether this was something i could accept and agree to. But yes, right outta the box (so to speak), i would probably just laugh and make a quick 'i am not interested' decision.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875