RE: Foot worshipping Dom

RE: Foot worshipping Dom (Full Version)

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

Message

SimplyIsaac -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/13/2009 11:51:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth not participating in an activity with your submissive partner that you personally enjoy because of how "someone else" (either your submissive partner or the masses or Webster's) is going to perceive you doesn't sound, to us, like dominating your partner. Fair enough. To me, worship was described pretty well by the dictionary, and I'd guess it's in line with most people's understanding and usage of the word. As for ignoring the perceptions of your consensual submissive/slave, you are well within your right to do that. Is it an intellectually sound idea? ETA: I personally don't think so.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/13/2009 11:58:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyIsaac quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth not participating in an activity with your submissive partner that you personally enjoy because of how "someone else" (either your submissive partner or the masses or Webster's) is going to perceive you doesn't sound, to us, like dominating your partner. As for ignoring the perceptions of your submissive/slave, you are well within your right to do that, of course. Is it an intellectually sound idea? You must need to refer back to your text book. Where is "ignoring the perceptions of your submissive/slave"; said or implied? Of course yours may be a case of defining your 'dominance' by the submissive need to please the other person involved. Maybe intellectually sound if that's the only way to experience the activity, but it's not dominance.

SimplyIsaac -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/13/2009 12:06:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth You must need to refer back to your text book. Where is "ignoring the perceptions of your submissive/slave"; said or implied? Perhaps here: "not participating in an activity with your submissive partner that you personally enjoy because of how "someone else" (either your submissive partner or the masses or Webster's) is going to perceive you doesn't sound, to us, like dominating your partner." Seems like a fair implication. No? If not, the message in the above line seems a little unclear to me.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/13/2009 12:16:10 PM)
quote: As for ignoring the perceptions of your consensual submissive/slave, you are well within your right to do that. Is it an intellectually sound idea? ETA: I personally don't think so. for those who need their submissive's perception of them to be adequately inspired, in order for them to submit, perhaps not.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/13/2009 12:17:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyIsaac quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth You must need to refer back to your text book. Where is "ignoring the perceptions of your submissive/slave"; said or implied? Perhaps here: "not participating in an activity with your submissive partner that you personally enjoy because of how "someone else" (either your submissive partner or the masses or Webster's) is going to perceive you doesn't sound, to us, like dominating your partner." Seems like a fair implication. No? If not, the message in the above line seems a little unclear to me. ignored wasn't the implication. proceeding anyway, in spite of anyone or anything else's opinion, was.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/13/2009 12:23:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyIsaac quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth You must need to refer back to your text book. Where is "ignoring the perceptions of your submissive/slave"; said or implied? Perhaps here: "not participating in an activity with your submissive partner that you personally enjoy because of how "someone else" (either your submissive partner or the masses or Webster's) is going to perceive you doesn't sound, to us, like dominating your partner." Seems like a fair implication. No? If not, the message in the above line seems a little unclear to me. I understand your confusion. It may be perceived "ignoring" were it described as; meeting, use, and farewell. Some people are involved beyond the act and the perspective of the submissive/slave involved is considered in the context of the relationship, not the act. However, although it may be perceived that the other party receiving the sensation is being "ignored" when the reality is by consenting to any act the submissive/slave perception is fundamentally considered even when the exchange is casual. Should your point be directed to non-consensual interaction then obviously the perspective of the submissive/slave was never in the equation in the first place. But then the proper label to use for that person isn't submissive or slave; it is victim.

SimplyIsaac -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/13/2009 12:27:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth for those who need their submissive's perception of them to be adequately inspired in order to proceed, perhaps not. Are you suggesting that a submissive doesn't need to be inspired by the dominant from the outset in order to serve? Further, are you suggesting that the dominant has complete immunity from all acts without so much as the slightest tarnish to her morale?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/13/2009 12:44:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyIsaac Are you suggesting that a submissive doesn't need to be inspired by the dominant from the outset in order to serve? No, I'm not suggesting - I'm stating; 'inspiration' is NOT a requirement for submission. quote: Further, are you suggesting that the dominant has complete immunity from all acts without so much as the slightest tarnish to her morale? "Immunity" from what? Criminal consequences - no; living within and fulfilling the obligations and responsibilities of the agreed upon dynamic and relationship - yes. Civil consequences are pragmatic, there is no contract or chain that stops anyone from leaving any situation. Should a submissive, or a slave for that matter, find their "morale "tarnished" beyond his/her expectations of the relationship dynamic they can leave. If the Dominant stops him/her - refer to the aforementioned, "criminal consequences". If you want it personal and a bit more succinct - I am not here to serve my slave or any submissive. They know what they are consenting to very clearly. There choice is simple, serve MY desires and needs if they happen to be compatible with your mental, emotional, and physical desires - great! If they don't - don't get involved. If it turns out word definitions didn't match - leave. It's worked wonderfully and insures everyone knows what's expected, and who is dominant.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/13/2009 12:48:01 PM)
quote: ...Are you suggesting that a submissive doesn't need to be inspired by the dominant from the outset in order to serve?... depends on the submissive. for example, this submissive doesn't need inspiration from a dominant in order to serve. quote: ...Further, are you suggesting that the dominant has complete immunity from all acts without so much as the slightest tarnish to her morale?... again, depends on the submissive...this slave's morale isn't tarnished by submitting to Master...even if He adores her. submission is what she signed up for.

RedMagic1 -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/13/2009 1:06:38 PM)
Very similar back-and-forths show up on Ask A Mistress, usually sparked by a post from a male sub. The sub says something along the lines of, "Women who give blowjobs are not dominant." The argument then sounds a lot like this one about foot-worship. I've also seen almost identical dialogue start after someone says, "Women who take it from behind are not dominant." If "being dominant" means "directing motion" or "wielding power," there is far more to dominance than what people do together physically. Sometimes people focus solely on the sexual aspect of dominance because they feel powerless to affect the "big bad world," and can only exert (or happily give up) control within an erotic context. The male slave owners I have seen post in this thread, however -- leadership/Jeff, Orion, Merc -- all are able to wield power over the economic aspects of their lives as well. This might be part of the reason they (and their partners) don't see why foot rubs are such an all-fired big deal. I'll make the decisions, and I'll give you foot massages. If you don't like that, don't ask me out. Anyone who wants to have a philosophical argument about this should first ask himself/herself, "Do I have a history of building successful relationships with real people in the real world?" If you don't, you might be well served by learning from people who have.

SimplyIsaac -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/13/2009 1:15:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I'm not suggesting - I'm stating; 'inspiration' is NOT a requirement for submission. Merc, that's interesting, because having served before, I know that for me there has to be something in the woman (usually a combination of things) that inspires me to serve in the first place. Internalizing my ability to serve and be submissive is one thing, but for it to connect in serving another person, there has to be some sort of reason why.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/13/2009 1:27:34 PM)
quote: because having served before, I know that for me there has to be something in the woman (usually a combination of things) that inspires me to serve in the first place. Internalizing my ability to serve and be submissive is one thing, but for it to connect in serving another person, there has to be some sort of reason why. Well, your service is then conditional. It requires "inspiration" whatever that is, or means, to you. You need a dominant to earn their "connection" with you. Is is appropriate to represent your position is that they have to continue to inspire you? When the inspiration is gone or something causes your perception to change, do you still serve? I refuse to turn this discussion into a label debate, however, pragmatically your requirement puts the power dynamic in your hands not whoever it is you are serving for as long as they inspire you. What if what you call inspiration is something else? Are you inspired because you have a new partner, a specific body type, hair color? Is the inspiration physically based? Are you inspired by the energy imparted? Often what is called inspiration is better described as 'frenzy' and becomes a 'sword of Damocles' hanging over the relationship participants. What if it falls? Edited to add: *Not that there is anything 'wrong', not as 'real', or 'true'; with the inspiration requirement or earning submission.*

SimplyIsaac -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/13/2009 1:30:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Very similar back-and-forths show up on Ask A Mistress, usually sparked by a post from a male sub. The sub says something along the lines of, "Women who give blowjobs are not dominant." The argument then sounds a lot like this one about foot-worship. I've also seen almost identical dialogue start after someone says, "Women who take it from behind are not dominant." But this thread is about foot worship, which isn't as vague a phrase as "cock sucking" or "do me from behind". quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 If "being dominant" means "directing motion" or "wielding power," there is far more to dominance than what people do together physically. Agreed. Emotive aspects must be considered in wielding dominance. There won't be much of a relationship before long if they are not.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/13/2009 1:45:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyIsaac quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf You may want to improve your communication skills, as it was seen as provocative by others, myself included. My perception was not skewed by any previous contact between the two of you either, as I had not read any topics before that one, that the two of you had engaged in communication. I won't apologize for being "provocative". If my writing style offends you so much, hit the ignore button please. I believe I offered a suggestion as to what "skewed" you to comment in a thread that you didn't bother to sound off in until recently. Hypocrisy is in equal measure here, then I guess. Has nothing to do with your style, and you again show that rather than there be anything in your area you may improve, it must be someone else's problem. Maybe you should look at the definition of hypocricy, as I have no problem being judged by the standards that I judge others by. Is english a second language for you? That would explain some of the communication issues. quote: I know how important it can be to protect our online buddies. I understand that. But if you want to keep making this post about me, let's carry this discussion to email instead. I think everyone has had their fill of me vs. you & Kia. You show idiocy, ignorance, and assumption here. I have had one communication with DemonKia, and that was just yesterday. I don't have very many online buddies. Just when I see someone acting like an ass I tend to point a finger and say "look at that guy acting like an ass." We all do it from time to time, but if you never own it, then you are doomed to never learn the lesson. Now what were some additional comments you had about the OP?

SimplyIsaac -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/13/2009 1:47:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Well, your service is then conditional. What submission by choice is not? The truth is we all have to get something out of serving. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth It requires "inspiration" whatever that is, or means, to you. You need a dominant to earn their "connection" with you. Don't we all? Otherwise, you'd be talking about classical slavery. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth What if what you call inspiration is something else? Are you inspired because you have a new partner, a specific body type, hair color? Is the inspiration physically based? Are you inspired by the energy imparted?Often what is called inspiration is better described as 'frenzy' and becomes a 'sword of Damocles' hanging over the relationship participants. What if it falls? I will avoid asking you to cease insinuating my motives are skin deep, and say that for me, it's character, intellectual qualities / compatibility, personality traits I find desirable and a strong understanding of psychology. That's the short version. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Not that there is anything 'wrong', not as 'real', or 'true'; with the inspiration requirement or earning submission. We all earn submission and the chance to submit, Merc, unless of course it's just roughhousing in the bedroom you're speaking of (which I doubt you are).

SimplyIsaac -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/13/2009 2:10:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf You show idiocy, ignorance, and assumption here. I have had one communication with DemonKia, and that was just yesterday. Yes, I noticed. Kia was quite sure of forecasting your arrival on the 12th in Post #: 184. Before then, we saw neither hide nor hair of you in this thread. I guess we'll just let the readers decide on this, if they even care. As for my show of idiocy and ignorance, well, again, ad hominems are getting a little old here, don't you think? By all means, proceed if they make you feel better.

RedMagic1 -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/13/2009 2:34:36 PM)
There's no online conspiracy going on here. Just multiple people who are actually in relationships pointing out in various ways that one guy who is not in a relationship, and whose last relationship ended badly, is taking an excessively linear, excessively narrow interpretation of what things like dominance and submission really mean. Another similarity between this and the "mistress-no-blowjob" threads is that they are usually started by a male sub who is alone. You're fitting a very standard pattern here, Isaac. I don't know if your philosophy came first, or your alone-ness, but I bet they are mutually reinforcing each other. Real people don't usually fit into crisp, neat boxes. They have a variety of (sometimes conflicting) hopes, desires and insecurities. Success with another person is like success in life: you have to deal with it as it truly is, not as you wish it would be.

SimplyIsaac -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/13/2009 2:59:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 There's no online conspiracy going on here. Thank you. Looking forward to your input on my comments to you. quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Another similarity between this and the "mistress-no-blowjob" threads is that they are usually started by a male sub who is alone. The thread was started by GabrielleSlave. quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 I don't know if your philosophy came first, or your alone-ness Things to ponder that only I know for sure. Your psychoanalysis isn't very productive or accurate, however. In the absence of anything substantive to add to the discussion at hand, I'm assuming you're here for other reasons.

DemonKia -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/13/2009 3:08:00 PM)
snicker I suspect this is for naught, but I simply used my inductive & deductive reasoning skills applied to my evaluation of how Orion responds, after reading his postings in general, & then following your trainwrecking capacities over to Leadership's thread & you, Isaac, tangling with Orion there. We're all as much quixotic ecru-knights in these threads as any other . . . quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyIsaac Yes, I noticed. Kia was quite sure of forecasting your arrival on the 12th in Post #: 184. Before then, we saw neither hide nor hair of you in this thread. I guess we'll just let the readers decide on this, if they even care. As for my show of idiocy and ignorance, well, again, ad hominems are getting a little old here, don't you think? By all means, proceed if they make you feel better.

RedMagic1 -> RE: Foot worshipping Dom (10/13/2009 3:25:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyIsaac quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Another similarity between this and the "mistress-no-blowjob" threads is that they are usually started by a male sub who is alone. The thread was started by GabrielleSlave. Excessive literalism, yet again. The "neverending" debate about this point was started, and is continued, by you. That was the parallel I was drawing. I am responding to your points. I engage in abstract thought for a living. I don't suck at it. However, I recognize that it is useless -- even a negative -- when dealing with certain areas of reality. Stop philosophizing and start seeing. Stop relying on "common sense" and start relying on what real human beings are telling you about their real lives. My response to your points is that it is impossible to reach truth about these matters by intellectualizing, so I am not going to try, and I encourage you to abandon that strategy as one that is destined to fail.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.152344E-02