RE: Subs Can't be a Liability?

RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (Full Version)

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

Message

LaTigresse -> RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (7/14/2012 7:15:29 PM)
Yanno, I am a mean, cold hearted, nasty tempered bitch........but I just cannot look at, measure, the people in my life as things. Hell, I don't even look at my furry babies as either assets or liabilities. Financially, they are absolutely liabilities. (fuck all have you ever FED a horse, during a drought year, let alone TWO OF THEM?!?!?) Not to mention 3 very spoilt canines. But what I gain from having the people I love, and my fur babies, in my life, simply cannot be measured by dollars. Without them, I would be even MORE mean, cold hearted and nasty tempered. The world has more than enough sociopathic murderers.

JanahX -> RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (7/14/2012 7:17:06 PM)
Its not your post - its that I dont understand why treating someone like they are not a person would be something under the BDSM umbrella. Or how people get so emotionally detached that they think that this is something to look for in another person. But I feel like this about numerous subjects that are somehow related to BDSM - like "breeding" - and holy shit, dont get me started on that one. Anyways - It just has "severely damaged" written all over it when I see people wanting stuff like that. quote: I'm sorry the post bothers you. I don't like making people feel uncomfortable. I was just curious about other people's views on the subject. My deepest apologies.

littlewonder -> RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (7/14/2012 8:20:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpotBrat quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder Sorry but I'm not working for a business. I'm in a loving relationship and everything that comes along with it. I understand. In the D/s relationships I've been in, we were very loving and stressed positivity and bolstering the relationship above everything else. We never treated or referred to our relationship as a business... Well, it happened once. I had to nip that in the bud real quick because that is not my preference. I was thinking more along the lines of an D/s relationship based off of objectification and ownership- one where love and caring (excluding for satisfaction, maintenance, and training) are not much of a concern. Of course, my example was highly exaggerated in this sense. lol Well I am owned and I am his object but he loves and cares for his object because who wants a broken object that is of no use to them? He loves his object and he cares for it because he doesn't want it broken. So I don't understand what you are getting at. I'm thinking you have simply met a lot of people who have commitment issues.

SpotBrat -> RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (7/14/2012 8:26:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder quote: ORIGINAL: SpotBrat quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder Sorry but I'm not working for a business. I'm in a loving relationship and everything that comes along with it. I understand. In the D/s relationships I've been in, we were very loving and stressed positivity and bolstering the relationship above everything else. We never treated or referred to our relationship as a business... Well, it happened once. I had to nip that in the bud real quick because that is not my preference. I was thinking more along the lines of an D/s relationship based off of objectification and ownership- one where love and caring (excluding for satisfaction, maintenance, and training) are not much of a concern. Of course, my example was highly exaggerated in this sense. lol Well I am owned and I am his object but he loves and cares for his object because who wants a broken object that is of no use to them? He loves his object and he cares for it because he doesn't want it broken. So I don't understand what you are getting at. I'm thinking you have simply met a lot of people who have commitment issues. A lot of people don't think about caring for their object. They prefer one that is self-maintaining. That way they only have to worry about their own satisfaction. Unfortunately, there are people who would throw out a sub that suddenly can't perform ideally because they need help and care to surpass something (this is speaking in terms of temporary issues, of course). It's these people that I'm talking about- the ones that likely have had very few functioning relationships. At least, that is the conclusion I come to when I read the foolhardy idealism that a few Doms throw out there.

littlewonder -> RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (7/14/2012 8:41:41 PM)
So basically you're complaining about the same thing that many many many others come on here and complain about..... A dom who they got involved with that hurt them because he couldn't show emotions and couldn't do a relationship and only wanted to fuck and use and then throw them away..... Nothing new.

SpotBrat -> RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (7/14/2012 8:58:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder So basically you're complaining about the same thing that many many many others come on here and complain about..... A dom who they got involved with that hurt them because he couldn't show emotions and couldn't do a relationship and only wanted to fuck and use and then throw them away..... Nothing new. ...I'm confused. I didn't get hurt by anyone? If your referring to my aforementioned relationship: I eventually discussed my issues with him (as i said, it was mainly an exhibitionist masquerade). He decided to drop the public facade and let me be myself more, but we could both feel our interests waning without that issue as an emotional catalyst. Because of that, we walked away from the relationship mutually and have maintained a strong friendship. Hell, we text each other at least once a week just to check up on each other. He is a good man, but we are not compatible. [8D] Besides, that is highly irrelevant to the content of this thread. The thread was intended for other subs to discuss how they feel about technical terms like "liability" and "asset" in terms of a D/s relationship. I especially want to hear their opinion based on the sometimes ludicrous hyperbole some lost little-duck Doms use to make themselves seem big, scary, and legitimate. Perhaps even more importantly, I would like to hear the input of any subs (if there are any- I've yet to meet one) who believe that they can only be an asset and are in no way a liability. As I said in my first post, "Personally, I think that being an "asset" as compared to a "liability" is a weighted concept. In other words, I think it's a matter of being more of an asset than a liability." That is my take on the situation of "liabilities" and "assets" in every relationship- be it vanilla or D/s. If I wanted to bitch and moan, honey, I would do so. However, I have developed a great distaste for those kinds of discussions after perusing through the boards. [sm=hearts.gif]

ARIES83 -> RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (7/14/2012 9:44:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpotBrat Besides, that is highly irrelevant to the content of this thread. The thread was intended for other subs to discuss how they feel about technical terms like "liability" and "asset" in terms of a D/s relationship. I especially want to hear their opinion based on the sometimes ludicrous hyperbole some lost little-duck Doms use to make themselves seem big, scary, and legitimate. Perhaps even more importantly, I would like to hear the input of any subs (if there are any- I've yet to meet one) who believe that they can only be an asset and are in no way a liability. I'm having a hard time understanding where your coming from, 'little lost duck doms'? using some sort of 'ludicrous hyperbole' Sounds like you've had some specific experiences... I'd benefit from knowing what exactly has happend to make you post this thread. An example situation or conversation would be easier for people to connect with and discuss. I'm not trying to have a go at you but I can see where LittleWonder is getting that idea. I will just say I as a Dom, don't think in that way or speak in that way. I don't see a person who talked like that as "scary and legitimate" Just a bit weird maybe... -ARIES

SpotBrat -> RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (7/14/2012 10:06:43 PM)
Same as next post. lol Sorry. Technical difficulties. \/ \/ \/

SpotBrat -> RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (7/14/2012 10:08:38 PM)
No big deal. I just have noticed a few profiles (both on here and on FetLife) where the Dom focused on the idea of "perfect slaves" that work and serve them 24/7 in some ideal world where nothing ever goes wrong and the sub never needs any emotional, physical, or spiritual care. As for my choice of words, I'm an avid fiction writer and poet. lol Sometimes I forget when to drop my flowery wording and be more formal and understandable. My fault. "Ludicrous" and "hyperbole" are two of my favorite words, and they sort of just rolled of my tongue (erm... fingers) since they did state my intention of adressing the silly dream world some people live in (as addressed in the previous paragraph). "Little-duck doms?" ...I thought it sounded cute. Basically, I was trying to talk about the kind of Doms who act very domineering rather than respectful so as to gain the attention of subs. The ones whose first message is: "I am (insert domineering and obnoxious username here) and I have taken an interest in you. You will address me as (insert title here) as we begin to discuss what I would have you and whether you would be interested," rather than striking up a friendly "Hello! How are you?" to begin with. There is a million threads out there addressing them. As to why "little-ducks?" That would take a stupid and tasteless analogy analysis. lol "Little ducks, big quacks," or something along those lines. I probably shouldn't be writing on here and working on poetry side-by-side. It seems they've started bleeding over to one-another. ^w^ I personally have never had a bad D/s experience other than the aforementioned situation, which was easily resolved and left no wounds or bitterness. I've never had one to do with the initial intention of this thread, either. They were simply observations taken from perusing through the Doms out there. Sorry for the confusion. We are so far off-topic. lol

littlewonder -> RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (7/14/2012 10:21:46 PM)
like I said...

SpotBrat -> RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (7/14/2012 10:24:24 PM)
You're right. That last post DID contain a complaint that is in thousands of threads. I admitted that in the post itself. However, that is not the point of the thread. I was just elaborating on your assumptions and Aries's questions. ^w^ If it bothers you, we can return to the original topic.

JanahX -> RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (7/14/2012 10:24:34 PM)
I think what the topic WAS - or what she was getting at was objectification. And to look at people as nothing but this or that - asset, liability whatever. That there are a lot of people that are wanting to have long term non-emotional relationships. Kinda like "You be there for me, but I wont be there for you when the going gets tough." I suppose you can say your owner sees you as a "thing" or as an "object" but does he really? Hypothetically - if a couple like this were walking down the street, and the sub gets shot, would the owner just keep walking? Well sure - why not? She was just a "thing" - not a person right? Its a ludicrous way of looking at humanity. Even many types of animals have instincts to take care of one another. I think people that advertise for these types of relationships are reeking of self indulgence. All take and no give. OP - I just wrote a post a few days ago about fucked up profiles on the other side that were about as far from reality as humanly possible. Too much porn and too much wanking makes an idiot indeed.

ARIES83 -> RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (7/14/2012 10:32:03 PM)
Hey atleast you get mail! Haha If you want my advice about touchy, domineering and demanding internet Doms, just ignore them. For the simple reason that, you can't be a Dom through a keyboard. Unless you are using the keyboard to beat someone on the ass. -ARIES

SpotBrat -> RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (7/14/2012 10:33:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JanahX I think what the topic WAS - or what she was getting at was objectification. And to look at people as nothing but this or that - asset, liability whatever. That there are a lot of people that are wanting to have a long term non emotional relationships. Kinda like "You be there for me, but I wont be there for you when the going gets tough." I suppose you can say your owner sees you as a "thing" or as an "object" but does he really? Hypothetically - if a couple like this were walking down the street, and the sub gets shot, would the owner just keep walking? Well sure - why not? She was just a "thing" - not a person right? Its a ludicrous way of looking at humanity. Even many types of animals have instincts to take care of one another. I think people that advertise for these types of relationships are reeking of self indulgence. All take and no give. OP - I just wrote a post a few days ago about fucked up profiles on the other side that were about as far from reality as humanly possible. Too much porn and too much wanking makes an idiot indeed. Thank You! [:D] Is it in your journals, or was it here on the forums? I would love to give it a read. I've only been on here a little while, so I am certain I haven't seen the worst yet. Porn and wanking certainly can produce idiots- look at the majority of modern-day high school kids. :/

SpotBrat -> RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (7/14/2012 10:35:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ARIES83 Hey atleast you get mail! Haha If you want my advice about touchy, domineering and demanding internet Doms, just ignore them. For the simple reason that, you can't be a Dom through a keyboard. Unless you are using the keyboard to beat someone on the ass. -ARIES It doesn't bother me, I usually just delete and move on. I don't bow my head to just anyone. ^w^ Keyboard beating? Is that from cyber-punk BDSM? lol

Kana -> RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (7/14/2012 10:42:10 PM)
quote: I was thinking more along the lines of an D/s relationship based off of objectification and ownership- one where love and caring (excluding for satisfaction, maintenance, and training) are not much of a concern. Of course, my example was highly exaggerated in this sense. lol You do know that while these may be quite prevalent in fiction they are pretty uncommon in reality? Emotion based relationships are far far more common,(As in 98% to 2% or so-no source for the numbers, just my observation over a long time in the scene) than ones that are strict TPE's only... Note that I'm not talking bout play, I'm talking about long term interactions.

JanahX -> RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (7/14/2012 10:46:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpotBrat Thank You! [:D] Is it in your journals, or was it here on the forums? I would love to give it a read. I've only been on here a little while, so I am certain I haven't seen the worst yet. Porn and wanking certainly can produce idiots- look at the majority of modern-day high school kids. :/ Yup- heres the link to the thread - http://www.collarchat.com/m_4169359/tm.htm

SpotBrat -> RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (7/14/2012 10:49:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kana quote: I was thinking more along the lines of an D/s relationship based off of objectification and ownership- one where love and caring (excluding for satisfaction, maintenance, and training) are not much of a concern. Of course, my example was highly exaggerated in this sense. lol You do know that while these may be quite prevalent in fiction they are pretty uncommon in reality? Emotion based relationships are far far more common,(As in 98% to 2% or so-no source for the numbers, just my observation over a long time in the scene) than ones that are strict TPE's only... Note that I'm not talking bout play, I'm talking about long term interactions. I know. That's kind of my point. It is impractical for the overwhelming majority of people. I know that the vast majority of people who will respond have amorous relationships. However, that doesn't mean people won't have different views of the subject. That's all I want to hear: viewpoints from the outside (because- according to your probably very close numbers- we only have a 1/50th chance of finding one from the inside).

SpotBrat -> RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (7/14/2012 10:50:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JanahX Yup- heres the link to the thread - http://www.collarchat.com/m_4169359/tm.htm Thank you very much. ^.^

Kana -> RE: Subs Can't be a Liability? (7/14/2012 11:01:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpotBrat quote: ORIGINAL: Kana quote: I was thinking more along the lines of an D/s relationship based off of objectification and ownership- one where love and caring (excluding for satisfaction, maintenance, and training) are not much of a concern. Of course, my example was highly exaggerated in this sense. lol You do know that while these may be quite prevalent in fiction they are pretty uncommon in reality? Emotion based relationships are far far more common,(As in 98% to 2% or so-no source for the numbers, just my observation over a long time in the scene) than ones that are strict TPE's only... Note that I'm not talking bout play, I'm talking about long term interactions. I know. That's kind of my point. It is impractical for the overwhelming majority of people. I know that the vast majority of people who will respond have amorous relationships. However, that doesn't mean people won't have different views of the subject. That's all I want to hear: viewpoints from the outside (because- according to your probably very close numbers- we only have a 1/50th chance of finding one from the inside). I'm not blowing smoke out my ass here my man, hence my original comment re relationships. I've been in straight TPE's before...and stayed in em as long as I got some enjoyment/payoff out of em. The last one actually ended because I couldn't fulfill HER needs, not the other way around-she had developed a liking for breath play, which is fine by me in general, but she had reached a point where she liked to be strangled till she passed out, which can be fatal and thus is over any lines I may have. (I won't go to jail for pussy(been there, done that, won't ever do it again)-it's a crazy hard limit I know, but hey, there it is) So I set her free because who wants a slave whose needs he can't meet.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2026

Terms of Service

0.03125