RE: Monogamy Agonistes (Full Version)

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



Message

masterpdg -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 8:15:29 PM)

I never said poly is better, whatever that means. Only that conditions upon an owner undermine the dynamic and that honestly is better than cheating an sneaking around.



sexyred1 -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 8:15:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subspacepilot2

quote:

Where as a man who is honest and upfront about requiring the true submission of his slaves, will most likely be much more honest in general. Moreover, a woman understanding her place and properly trained will not suffer the heartbreak extremely common to women who limited their owner and discovered that his honor was lacking (indeed, has anything caused women more emotional pain than this unnatural expectation?)ORIGINAL: masterpdg 



D/s is a dance. When one partner doesn't lead but rather drags the other around at whim, in time quality is lost.



I have to say I love that line. Perhaps it should be needlepointed onto a pocket square and placed in the OP's pocket.



KatyLied -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 8:16:09 PM)

quote:

RULES FOR SUBMISSION - that is exactly the kind of thing that undermines what is beautiful about this life.


But there are rules, how can you fail to see that?  What do you think is going on during the getting-to-know-you and negotiation stages of any relationship?



smartsub10 -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 8:19:33 PM)

quote:


RULES FOR SUBMISSION - that is exactly the kind of thing that undermines what is beautiful about this life.


Why?  Because you think so? 

This thread is getting more entertaining as the night goes on.





masterpdg -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 8:19:53 PM)

KatyLied -

I do not think of this as a business deal with negotiations. I think the introductory time is for determining the character of the man and if he is trustworthy with power (because if he is not, it makes no difference what you negotiated)



sexyred1 -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 8:20:17 PM)

I have never seen anyone try this hard to justify cheating. It is riot.

Just cheat, your wife can read all this, she is obviously ok with it, so why drag us into it?



masterpdg -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 8:20:59 PM)

smartsub -

No because the sub setting the rules is a priori destructive of the charge that comes from submission.



smartsub10 -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 8:23:05 PM)

Or so YOU believe.





masterpdg -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 8:24:03 PM)

I do wonder why women call it cheating?



masterpdg -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 8:25:19 PM)

smartsub -

Not I beleive. a priori. If the exciting comes from being out of control and trusting. the rulebook has to undermine that.



smartsub10 -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 8:25:50 PM)

Men who are monogamous call it cheating when their female partner has sex with another man.  So it isn't a female term.



masterpdg -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 8:27:04 PM)

Not when one is slave agrees to it and its open. that is very judgmental of all poly relationships



smartsub10 -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 8:29:38 PM)

I was speaking in general terms.  You "wondered" why women call it cheating and I was pointing out that it isn't an exclusively female term.

I don't see where I passed judgment on poly relationships.



BonesFromAsh -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 8:31:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: masterpdg

Not when one is slave agrees to it and its open. that is very judgmental of all poly relationships


Note the key word.

Compatibility...plain and simple.

I look forward to your explanation of the statements I mentioned earlier. I understand it may take some time, tomorrow is another day. [8|]



Twoshoes -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 8:32:05 PM)

quote:

As for femdom relationships, I cannot comment and find very few women who truly obtain transcendent pleasure from being dominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lockit
I've taken great pleasure in teaching men like you a few lessons. lol But, that has to wait until I stop laughing and I'm still laughing. LOL... God, I love this place!

Run, I think she's after trancendental pleasure!

quote:

ORIGINAL: jujubeeMB
Well, I could easily call what you prefer "fantasy submission." Everyone has needs and conditions, even the supposed no-limits subs - they've just found Doms who fit what they're looking for to "submit unconditionally" to. You'll never find true unconditional surrender in this world, because we all have brains and survival instincts and we don't just do whatever the first guy to cross our path tells us to. So really, as long as we all have legal rights and cognizant thought, it's all conditional submission.


I've posted before that it would be really pointless to dominate a rock. "Stand there rock!" As far as I'm concerned, the more cognizant thought the better, but it might be a sign of my fakeness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jujubeeMB
My psychological and emotional needs aren't important to me anymore, because a stranger on the internet told me that I'm going about it wrong"? You're insulting, closed-minded and self-righteous in your approach, and no one is going to hear a word you say.

OP, for the last time, please consider using an emotional appeal when you don't have a logical argument. I will spell it out (even though I'm not interested in slaves):

"It is a truly beautiful moment when one of my slaves adopts one more of my values and considers changing one of her limits to make me a happier and more fulfilled human being. Her devotion towards me fuels my love for her and, in turn, our relationship transcends to a whole 'nother level which is truly indescribable with words. She revels in her own deeper submission and higher level of trust for me.

As long as I care for her emotional well-being, first and foremost, with time and closeness, such a transformation is not only plausible, but very rewarding. This type of transcendance should be the true goal of slavery."

I'm not saying everyone will agree with you, but you will make more headway than saying "I'm right, cuz I thought of it, you know." No one got elected, because they were good at statistics.
Atleast it "kinda" makes sense, since people change gradually and it's not unheard of for subs to change their limits when they feel more secure and comfortable without being pressured.

~Twoshoes - Could dominate a rock and a watermelon at the same time. I'm still on step 7/10 regarding the slicing of the latter.



Aynne88 -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 8:36:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: masterpdg

Spirit Radiance (pretty name) is very forceful in her argument, and I no doubt as to her sincerity although she questions me for some reason, but that's okay. Of course, you Master will tell you he agrees with monogamy (men will happily lie to get in your pants or slip a collar around our neck), but it is very unlikely he will practice it.
I prefer honestly to conventional promises, but I am getting the impression from this discussion that honestly is nearly as important as sweet lies.



OP, firstly it has never been difficult for me to do what you implied submissives have a hard time doing, finding a trustwothy Dominant. I believe quality people attract quality people. If I practice integrity and send out the vibe that I am seeking a man of intellect, attractiveness and success, and I have the same or similar attributes to offer, I expect no less. That is exactly what kind of man I am with. He is also firmly decidely monogamous, to the point that I am not allowed to bring another woman into the mix even on occasion which I very much enjoy. So your assumptions are well...incorrect at best.

As a submissive that only for me means that I am in a relationship with someone more dominant than myself whom I acquiesce to, it does not mean that I am a fucking twit that needs to be told that I need to trust and have good judgement on the man that has me bound gagged and helpless, I rather knew that already.



masterpdg -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 8:38:20 PM)

twoshoes,

I generally to not want to descend into emotion especially when basically in a 50 on one situation (which sounds like fun normally).

Your phrasing however was very nice.

I am a man of great humor or I wouldnt be typing away tonight under massive assault. I am in the end fascinated how owmen react to a man honest about these issues.

Thanks for the comment



masterpdg -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 8:42:12 PM)

Can people please stop assuming the existence a few counter example disproves a general point. I always have to work on this with my students I dont want to do it here.



SpiritedRadiance -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 8:45:04 PM)

give us evidence and scientific studies that prove your point and well no we still wont take you seriously...

your stating your opinion as if it is fact and are expecting everyone to follow

heres a fact for you your not as intelligent as you claim.

no matter how much you stomp your foot and demand we do something we arent going to...



sexyred1 -> RE: Monogamy Agonistes (8/28/2010 8:45:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: masterpdg

twoshoes,

I generally to not want to descend into emotion especially when basically in a 50 on one situation (which sounds like fun normally).

Your phrasing however was very nice.

I am a man of great humor or I wouldnt be typing away tonight under massive assault. I am in the end fascinated how owmen react to a man honest about these issues.
Thanks for the comment


We are reacting to how you are stating your issue, not the honesty. You are ridiculously condescending and if you cannot see that, well, no one can help you.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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