Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Mono vs poly?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Mono vs poly? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Mono vs poly? - 8/23/2013 3:36:33 PM   
needlesandpins


Posts: 3901
Status: offline
I will leave aside what I have now because i'm not sure what the hell it is, but it certainly isn't a full on relationship.

so that aside I have learnt that I am mono all the way. my ex had fantasies of others within our relationship. it was ok to start with as a fantasy, but it got to the point where it was all the time. so I thought ok let's do this and get it out of his system. I thought that at least it was me he loved, and me he was coming home to, but in the end even that wasn't enough for him. through that I learnt that I hate not being enough. nor do I like sharing. if I can't do that for just sex then I sure as hell can't do it with time and emotions attached.

it was different with sharing him with another guy because a guy could give him something I couldn't. however, it makes me feel like shit to think that his mind is on another woman instead of me. why should I play second fiddle to someone else? why the hell should I have to wait around for my turn while someone else gets what I want? i'm not bi so I most certainly wouldn't be getting anything out of it other than hurt.

mind you, i'm saying all that but I have come to realise that whatever it is that a woman needs for a man to give her commitment and loyalty.....well I have no idea what it is I just know I don't have it. thinking back I have never been enough, and I never will be. I don't have enough to offer for what I want in return, so there is no point in even thinking further about it. I did say once in another thread not too long ago that I couldn't be the only person like me. there had to be a male version of me......capable of wanting and loving only one person, but without the full on all the time relationship. jeez I couldn't get the bits I wanted out of a 16yr relationship, so it's never going to happen with less than that. my ex was the biggest compromise of my life that I am not willing to repeat.

i'm glad that it appears to work for some people because I think it gives hope to other that want the same. so far I've never met anyone else like me.

needles

_____________________________

I deserved better. Not than you, but from you.

(in reply to TNDommeK)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Mono vs poly? - 8/23/2013 3:46:26 PM   
DesFIP


Posts: 25191
Joined: 11/25/2007
From: Apple County NY
Status: offline
Sure it's the master's right, as long as he's upfront about it. Because the master's responsibility to be a stand up human being trumps all those rights. A guy who doesn't mention this until he's slapped a collar on and then tells her to bring him back another female? That's not a master in my book.

I will compare this to the house. He has every right to say we're going to paint the walls or fix the garage door. Those things will help the house last longer.

But taking a bulldozer to the foundation of the house? Not so much. That destroys the house and then what is he master of?

_____________________________

Slave to laundry

Cynical and proud of it!


(in reply to needlesandpins)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Mono vs poly? - 8/23/2013 3:46:38 PM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir
The difference is that, generally, cucks seek out those types of dynamics. The cuck still has to agree to it. Both parties do.

We're on the same wave-length here. Some people seek it out. Others don't.

I know this isn't how it goes for everyone, but since I'm already a part of a couple, the poly thing is pretty much an automatic.



_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to searching4mysir)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Mono vs poly? - 8/23/2013 8:15:13 PM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

if your "slave" insists on heavy conditions to the arrangement, like something as banal as other women in the circle and will indeed throw in the towel if you decide you want another, you are not in possession of a slave, but what's commonly called a "submissive."



(in reply to MarcEsadrian)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Mono vs poly? - 8/23/2013 8:32:27 PM   
sexyred1


Posts: 8998
Joined: 8/9/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian



Ladies: does all that unchecked power in a man not sound right to you? Avoid being an outright slave to him, then, I'd say. The onus upon us all is to be honest about ourselves first and with others second where matters such as these or their limitations are concerned. If you are misapplying the term to yourself or your own personal vision, therein lies the first misstep. You can shrug all this off and speak of not wanting to "fit into labels" all you want, but once you have used an old, well-worn word to describe yourself or your desired reality, be prepared for its literal implications and repercussions.


I really agree with this. Whether or not it is right does not matter, what matters to many men who term themselves Masters, they feel they have a right to do whatever they wish to a slave, up to an including, poly. Not that Doms/subs are not engaged in poly, but we are discussing semantics re: the word slave.

I was thinking that the OP is putting herself out there as a slave and as she has every right to only seek monogamy, her running into men who keep bringing up poly, should be an alert.

I am submissive and I am only monogamous, therefore I do not get approached by poly men as they know I will take them to take a hike.

Early in my life, I tried multiples (never with my guy) and it was always ho hum, boring. I found that the men who wanted 3 threesomes literally could not handle it when they had it. The women were more fun than the men is those situations and invariably, someone got upset. Not me, as I was not invested in their relationship which is why I never did it with someone I loved.

I never had a desire to be with others when happy in a relationship. I also know that I am more than enough for one man.

I don't judge people in poly; I sometimes envy them, but it is not for me.

And OP, if it is not for you, perhaps change your designation from slave to sub or, keep on being a slave, but stand firm in your resolution to be monogamous.

And don't leave the lifestyle because of lack of finding someone; if that was true, many of us would just leave when we are between relationships.


(in reply to MarcEsadrian)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Mono vs poly? - 8/23/2013 8:40:31 PM   
sexyred1


Posts: 8998
Joined: 8/9/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: SerWhiteTiger

The problem is that fucking around is a very insecure thing to do and is very unDomly behavior. It's a way of proving to yourself that a female has submitted to you


I disagree. Sex is just sex. It doesn't prove love, intimacy or submission. It's merely a physical act.



Well, to some people sex represents more than a physical act. To them, it does represents trust, intimacy, love, respect, loyalty, etc.

Which is why me and those people are monogamous, we do not want to share our sex or have our partner be shared.

(in reply to OsideGirl)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Mono vs poly? - 8/23/2013 8:53:43 PM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
What you leave out is that M/s relationships are negotiated.


I leave that out because what you said above isn't correct. A master-slave relationship is a destination. It doesn't exist within a nexus of broad compromises, hashed out conditions, and careful provisos. What you are describing, instead, is a general prescription for general D/s relationships out of the box. Confusing the two happens, of course, when we start speaking of doms and masters and subs and slaves interchangeably, which is no rare thing, of course.

Consensual slavery is the ultimate terminus of being under the control of another; it is not a state of negotiation, but intimate accord and alignment. It may be entered into fairly quickly and with very little dialog, or quite gradually, as fears and limitations melt away and a mind is brought to more absolute heel. But either way, it is the destination that is of import and, make no mistake about it, that destination is as whole and complete a form of surrender and devotion to another as humanly possible. If you don't have that in your midst, if your "slave" insists on heavy conditions to the arrangement, like something as banal as other women in the circle and will indeed throw in the towel if you decide you want another, you are not in possession of a slave, but what's commonly called a "submissive." And you probably don't even have that.


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
Legal slavery died with the 13th amendment in the US and died in England around the turn of the 19th century.


It would seem, then, that your deeper conviction is slavery doesn't really exist at all! In such case, I'm not certain why I'm even bothering with replying. Nonetheless, you'd be a fool to assume:

a. Legality alone defines a state of slavery, and;
b. That slavery does not still exist today within the very countries you cite.



I didn't say slavery didn't exist, I said legal slavery didn't exist, where people are literally properly. You can have an elaborate contract, you can have all kinds of stuff in it, and it wouldn't mean thing one legally, therefore it isn't legally recognized or real in that context. The reason I brought that up is you are saying that slavery is about absolute control only, that a slave is owned and so forth and anything less than that is not slavery, which besides being semantics, fails on one major attribute, and that is even in a total control relationship, an owned relationship, there is consent to be there.You can't buy someone else, you can't kidnap them and make them your slave, so if someone becomes your slave they agree to your terms, because legally, they can walk away at any point and there isn't anything you or any dominant could do about it, and if you tried you would probably end up in jail for harassment and/or kidnapping, there is a fundamental point of consent there, and if so then arguing that slavery means no consent is crap, because a slave always has the right to walk away. In true slavery a slave owner can force a slave back, in this, there is no such bound, the person is there because they want to be...not to mention that the terms of the slave contract are not determined by you or me, what is slavery and what isn't is up to them. Even in real life slavery of the type they had on ye old plantation days, slaves had varying amounts of freedom in terms of what they could do, it depended on the master and his/her wishes, some slaves had the freedom when their tasks for their master were done to earn money on their own, some had the right to choose their own mates, etc.......so it varied in the real (horrible) version. Slavery is what is in the hearts of the slave and master, and how they come to it, what they have in it, is their business, and you have no more right to label their relationship then I do yours, there are things with absolute slave relationships I find troubling, but I don't say you don't have the right to do it or call it anything different, if that is your slave relationship, so be it.

Again, every type of slave relationship you are talking about has consent in it, both parties consent to enter it, formally or informally, they have different bounds and mechanics, but to the people in it, it is M/s. Claiming true slavery for what you do is puffery, in other words, because there is no such thing if slavery without legal backing doesn't exist, so in the end it is about what the people feel it is and what they do with it.

Actually, from the 'real' world of slavery, i guess you could argue there are multiple models, both of which are forms of slavery but different. There was chattel slavery, where a slave is a possession like a piece of furniture (I shudder to think that religious groups could defend and help support slavery, looked at like this it is nothing more than inhuman cruelty), where basically you only had whatever the owner gave. However, there also was indentured servitude, where someone agreed to the control of another person, but the terms were negotiated (in colonial days, it would be getting your passage to the colonies paid for, and you were theirs for X years). It was slavery with limits, but you were owned by the person and if you ran away, the law would bring you back, and you could be punished by your owner. Typical things in those contracts were that in New England they didn't have to eat lobster more than 3 times a week, or specifying how many hours they had to work and so forth. With a negotiated slavery, maybe it is more akin to indentured servitude...but still, in one form or another, there is always consent, with few or no bounds or some. I don't consider specifying monogamy as being burdensome demands on the dominant, if the M has total control, if he agrees to bounds, limitations, whatever, that is his right, and if he choose not to allow someone to become a sub because they are monogamous, that is his right, too *shrug*

< Message edited by njlauren -- 8/23/2013 9:04:30 PM >

(in reply to MarcEsadrian)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Mono vs poly? - 8/23/2013 9:15:34 PM   
Spiritedsub2


Posts: 3315
Joined: 7/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sexyred1


quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

I disagree. Sex is just sex. It doesn't prove love, intimacy or submission. It's merely a physical act.



Well, to some people sex represents more than a physical act. To them, it does represents trust, intimacy, love, respect, loyalty, etc.

Which is why me and those people are monogamous, we do not want to share our sex or have our partner be shared.


I share Red's view. I don't know of anyone, poly people included, for whom sex has no meaning beyond the behavior itself. Because of its potential intimacy it can be a barometer and symbol of so much.


_____________________________

Don’t grieve. Anything you lose comes round in another form.
~ Rumi

Laughing Dolphin

(in reply to sexyred1)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Mono vs poly? - 8/23/2013 9:22:13 PM   
Spiritedsub2


Posts: 3315
Joined: 7/18/2012
Status: offline
To OP I would say "patience". Don't give up; take the long view. Those who have found "the one" in this lifestyle seem so happy, I think it's worth the sometimes grueling wait. Lots of things to do and enjoy in the meantime

_____________________________

Don’t grieve. Anything you lose comes round in another form.
~ Rumi

Laughing Dolphin

(in reply to TieMeInKnottss)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Mono vs poly? - 8/23/2013 10:59:44 PM   
SerWhiteTiger


Posts: 437
Joined: 8/12/2013
From: Why is my name Florida? That's a state!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


quote:

ORIGINAL: SerWhiteTiger

The problem is that fucking around is a very insecure thing to do and is very unDomly behavior. It's a way of proving to yourself that a female has submitted to you, but if you're secure in your dominance, you don't need the act of intercourse for that. So female subs are in something of a catch-22 here. In agreeing to give their Master this right, they're basically agreeing to give their Master the right to prove he is too insecure to be their Dom. Often, the entire framework of a D/s relationship is built on the submissive's choice to perceive that the Dom is more dom than they maybe actually are (because honestly, we're all human), and giving them such an easy and irresistible way to prove that they aren't can be disastrous, all while neither party has any conscious understanding of what's wrong.

Personally, I have made it clear to my sub that I have the right to fuck around, but while I had a lot of desire to do so when I was just playing at being Dom, I have zero desire to do so since I have become truly dominant.. Sex is fun and all, but it pales in comparison to D/s.

OTOH, I do want another sub/slave. But that's not about fucking around.


I don't think it is necessarily insecure, there are dom/mes I have met who are poly who are anything but insecure, they were clear who they are, the sub knew and agreed to it and there was no pressure there. I have met 'dom's' who do fuck around (I mean go to singles bars and pick up women) and use it as a bragging point, who throw it in their subs face and basically say 'see, I can do that, and there is nothing you can do about it' (and I am not talking about humiliation play here, I am talking dickheaded behavior that is not play), and they go around to their dom wannabe friends and brag about it and get the 'dude, you are so domly' and the like *ick*..but there also are a lot of people I respect, like LP and some of the male doms on here, who don't fuck around the way I am talking about, they do have outside relationships but they are that, big difference, it is the difference from being an immature player in the vanilla world and being someone people want to be in a relationship with; one is a fuck partner for a night of hot sex, the other is someone you want to actually be around:)


I was talking about fucking around, not poly. Poly and fucking around are two entirely different things. A person can be poly and never even have sex.

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Mono vs poly? - 8/23/2013 11:02:05 PM   
SerWhiteTiger


Posts: 437
Joined: 8/12/2013
From: Why is my name Florida? That's a state!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: SerWhiteTiger

The problem is that fucking around is a very insecure thing to do and is very unDomly behavior. It's a way of proving to yourself that a female has submitted to you


I disagree. Sex is just sex. It doesn't prove love, intimacy or submission. It's merely a physical act.



This is certainly true for some people. It is certainly not true for others.

But my statement was a rather gross generalization. It is often true, but not always. Different people are different.

(in reply to OsideGirl)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Mono vs poly? - 8/24/2013 8:28:51 AM   
OsideGirl


Posts: 14414
Joined: 7/1/2005
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sexyred1


quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: SerWhiteTiger

The problem is that fucking around is a very insecure thing to do and is very unDomly behavior. It's a way of proving to yourself that a female has submitted to you


I disagree. Sex is just sex. It doesn't prove love, intimacy or submission. It's merely a physical act.



Well, to some people sex represents more than a physical act. To them, it does represents trust, intimacy, love, respect, loyalty, etc.

Which is why me and those people are monogamous, we do not want to share our sex or have our partner be shared.



You missed the point.

Sex itself does not indicate intimacy, love or anything beyond the physical act. Ever have a one night stand? Did you love that person or have intimacy with that person? Did you trust that person? Respect that person? Have loyalty with that person? Nope. It was just a physical act.

Intimacy comes from other places and sex can become a part of that intimacy, but it is not the source of it.

In our case, I'm far more concerned about a violation of trust and intimacy than I am about the physical act of intercourse. And I think if most people sat down and thought about it, they would realize the same. It's not the act that really upsets us. It's the possibility that someone has emotionally given away a part of themselves that we feel belongs to us.






_____________________________

Give a girl the right shoes and she will conquer the world. ~ Marilyn Monroe

The Accelerated Velocity of Terminological Inexactitude

(in reply to sexyred1)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Mono vs poly? - 8/24/2013 12:36:00 PM   
MarcEsadrian


Posts: 852
Joined: 8/24/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
I didn't say slavery didn't exist.


…there is no such thing if slavery without legal backing doesn't exist, so in the end it is about what the people feel it is and what they do with it.


Even in real life slavery of the type they had on ye old plantation days…


I must admit that I'm finding it hard to accurately determine what you think is real or not in regard to consensual slavery and your recent reply hasn't shed further light on that much.


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
…even in a total control relationship, an owned relationship, there is consent to be there.


This has not been contested, so far as I know. I will not get into consenting to not negotiate, as I'm sure that horse has been beaten well enough at this point by moi. There's not much need to rehash.


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
However, there also was indentured servitude, where someone agreed to the control of another person, but the terms were negotiated (in colonial days, it would be getting your passage to the colonies paid for, and you were theirs for X years). It was slavery with limits, but you were owned by the person and if you ran away, the law would bring you back, and you could be punished by your owner.


Oh yes, the "indentured servitude" system spread far and wide as British colonization spread throughout America, but it would be foolhardy to believe that word "servant" was literally respected from the word "slave." The whole score of indentured servants was populated by men, women, and in some cases, even children who were forcibly sent overseas and by those who willingly gambled away their freedoms. Leaving "servants" in hostile indian territories to fend for themselves once they were of no use was a common practice. Worn out or dying "servants" would be literally thrown out into the cold by their masters. Others were beaten to death with little to no retribution.

And they were certainly bought, sold, and traded like slaves. Big planters like William Tucker purchased roughly 200 "servants" quite casually and with little negotiation involved:

I have transported divers servants thither for which every servant I am to have fifty acres of land, for my first dividend, which will amount unto 3000 acres for the first dividend, 3000 for the second dividend, and 3000 for the third.

A study of 5,000 "indentured servants" entering the colony from 1670–1680 shows that fewer than 1,300 proved their rights to freedom dues and just 241 became land owners. Of the 5,000, one in four is thought to have died while still in bondage. See: John Van der Ze, Bound Over: Indentured Servitude and American Conscience (1985).

Take a look at Virginia's sordid history in the 1660's for a more illuminating example of how the membrane dividing servant and slave was very thin, if present at all. I bring this up to demonstrate that using examples from the past to back up a point about how ongoing negotiation or compromise among both parties existed in slavery is dubious, to say the least, even among "servants." In many cases, the choice to enter bondage was willful, indeed, but the ability to leave it was fraught with difficulty, if not often impossible due to the scandal, deception, and vacant laws of the time.

In theory, the indentured servant was not the same as the slave. In practice, this often wasn't the case.


_____________________________

Omnes una manet nox

Founder, Humbled Females

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Mono vs poly? - 8/24/2013 6:19:57 PM   
DesFIP


Posts: 25191
Joined: 11/25/2007
From: Apple County NY
Status: offline
What the hell does this have to do with the op?

Look Marc, yeah, you can claim you're fine with her being monogamous and needing you to be the same and then saying "Ha ha, I lied and since you're now a slave, tough luck." But what will that get you? Will it get you more love and devotion or less? Will it get you a partner who loves having sex with you or one who gets nauseous at the idea of it? Will it get you more happiness at home or less?

Smart dominants do things that get them what they want, not things that get them what they don't want. So unless you really want someone who believes you having sex with her is rape; someone who distrusts, dislikes and fears you, why would you do this.

Why wouldn't you have been honest and told her you wanted poly before you suckered her into a relationship?

You can't change her from monogamous to poly and you can't change her from heterosexual to bisexual. So why deliberately get into a relationship that won't fulfill your needs or hers? That's as stupid as deliberately buying a pair of shoes two sizes too small and then complaining because your feet are blistered and bleeding.

_____________________________

Slave to laundry

Cynical and proud of it!


(in reply to MarcEsadrian)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Mono vs poly? - 8/24/2013 8:02:28 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

What the hell does this have to do with the op?


I was wondering that as well, but not from Marc's post, but the ones he is reply to where someone veered off on a tangent that went into the twilight zone of dead horses being beat. (The "what is a slave?" topic that happens ever few months)

quote:


Look Marc, yeah, you can claim you're fine with her being monogamous and needing you to be the same and then saying "Ha ha, I lied and since you're now a slave, tough luck." But what will that get you? Will it get you more love and devotion or less? Will it get you a partner who loves having sex with you or one who gets nauseous at the idea of it? Will it get you more happiness at home or less?


Cannot speak for Marc, but for me it is I can fuck who I want. I have just not found any worth everything that goes along with the fucking. My girl makes sure to keep me as satisfied as I wish to be. My girl may not be touched or touch another without my permission.
I do not see where Marc has said he is or would do as you stated. It seems that Marc owns property as I do, and that is there is my way and no highway.

I believe this is where the various degrees or different types of these types of relationships shows those differences.

quote:


Smart dominants do things that get them what they want, not things that get them what they don't want. So unless you really want someone who believes you having sex with her is rape; someone who distrusts, dislikes and fears you, why would you do this.


I cannot think of reason for me, but I do not rule out that others may have a reason that is valid for them. Marc is speaking of a level of relationship that goes into the IE or Owner/property areas it seems.

quote:


Why wouldn't you have been honest and told her you wanted poly before you suckered her into a relationship?


Maybe it was not desired at the beginning. If things change then the owner would do as they please and the property can either accept or leave. Nothing dishonest there if it has always been maintained that the D type can do as they please whenever they please.

quote:


You can't change her from monogamous to poly and you can't change her from heterosexual to bisexual. So why deliberately get into a relationship that won't fulfill your needs or hers? That's as stupid as deliberately buying a pair of shoes two sizes too small and then complaining because your feet are blistered and bleeding.


Needs may change as time goes by and the relationship may not be what others assume a relationship should be. I know many that keep a detached emotional stance when owning property and realize that it likely will not be forever. Not everyone gets into relationships forever, and focus on the immediate.

I believe that many assume too much when they here that a D type does as they please. That statement does not omit using intelligence and other risk assessment when making decisions.


_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to DesFIP)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Mono vs poly? - 8/24/2013 8:57:02 PM   
Spiritedsub2


Posts: 3315
Joined: 7/18/2012
Status: offline
Fast reply

This has been a useful and informative thread to read. Assuming that the material posted by those who identity as owners of property is fairly illustrative of the generic owner mindset, I am able to reject the slave designation for myself. I hope never to feel the degree of self-abnegation that would inspire me to put up with this level of crap.

_____________________________

Don’t grieve. Anything you lose comes round in another form.
~ Rumi

Laughing Dolphin

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Mono vs poly? - 8/24/2013 10:47:22 PM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spiritedsub2

Fast reply

This has been a useful and informative thread to read. Assuming that the material posted by those who identity as owners of property is fairly illustrative of the generic owner mindset, I am able to reject the slave designation for myself. I hope never to feel the degree of self-abnegation that would inspire me to put up with this level of crap.

You took the word right out of my mouth:). Actually, it also raises another question, as the owner of property people generally take care of it, to make sure it stays in good shape. if you own a car, you maintain it, you wash it, wax it, and you try to avoid driving it in ways that would damage it, like driving over curbs or potholes at high speed. If you own a horse, you don't put too much weight on the horse, you curry comb it, have it shod properly and so forth.

So if a slave is owned, and is monogamous and would feel real pain at seeing their owner by with other women, that could cause serious emotional hurt and damage, why would an owner treat their property like that, knowing it could damage them, simply because they can. I could drive my car on icy roads at 70 MPH, but it is likely I and the car will end up harmed, so why do it? It kind of reminds me of a story attributed to Abraham Lincoln, where he talked about the clever farmer, who realized if he fed his horse less, it would do the work but would cost him less, thus he could make more money. The next week he thought he could save more money, and fed it less...and the next week the horse dropped dead of hunger, and the farmer cried to everyone how he had lost a valuable horse. Mistreating property might make someone feel like an owner with absolute power, but it doesn't make them smart......

(in reply to Spiritedsub2)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Mono vs poly? - 8/24/2013 11:01:16 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spiritedsub2

Fast reply

This has been a useful and informative thread to read. Assuming that the material posted by those who identity as owners of property is fairly illustrative of the generic owner mindset, I am able to reject the slave designation for myself. I hope never to feel the degree of self-abnegation that would inspire me to put up with this level of crap.

You took the word right out of my mouth:). Actually, it also raises another question, as the owner of property people generally take care of it, to make sure it stays in good shape. if you own a car, you maintain it, you wash it, wax it, and you try to avoid driving it in ways that would damage it, like driving over curbs or potholes at high speed. If you own a horse, you don't put too much weight on the horse, you curry comb it, have it shod properly and so forth.

So if a slave is owned, and is monogamous and would feel real pain at seeing their owner by with other women, that could cause serious emotional hurt and damage, why would an owner treat their property like that, knowing it could damage them, simply because they can. I could drive my car on icy roads at 70 MPH, but it is likely I and the car will end up harmed, so why do it? It kind of reminds me of a story attributed to Abraham Lincoln, where he talked about the clever farmer, who realized if he fed his horse less, it would do the work but would cost him less, thus he could make more money. The next week he thought he could save more money, and fed it less...and the next week the horse dropped dead of hunger, and the farmer cried to everyone how he had lost a valuable horse. Mistreating property might make someone feel like an owner with absolute power, but it doesn't make them smart......




I have used very similar examples. Some are good owners and some are not. It does not remove their right to do so, and all situations are different. There is no one size fits all.

What is not smart is believing that our individual views will fit exactly with other peoples inter personal relationships.

This is also another reason I am very selective for another to be a part of the relationship.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Mono vs poly? - 8/24/2013 11:02:59 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline
Different strokes for different folks. I personally will have no other type of relationship because I got tired of the self righteous and pompous crap of those when in a non O/p relationship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spiritedsub2

Fast reply

This has been a useful and informative thread to read. Assuming that the material posted by those who identity as owners of property is fairly illustrative of the generic owner mindset, I am able to reject the slave designation for myself. I hope never to feel the degree of self-abnegation that would inspire me to put up with this level of crap.



_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Spiritedsub2)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Mono vs poly? - 8/24/2013 11:21:11 PM   
SerWhiteTiger


Posts: 437
Joined: 8/12/2013
From: Why is my name Florida? That's a state!
Status: offline
This is power exchange. The entire point of power exchange is that the submissive gives the Dominant the power and the Dominant does not abuse it. Just because a submissive gives their Dominant the power to do something doesn't mean the Dominant should actually do it. It is entirely reasonable for a Dominant who takes their submissive as a slave to require that their slave grants them the power of either polyamory or fucking around as part of their personal definition of what it means to be a slave, even if the Dominant never partakes in that activity because they know it would harm their submissive. Then, the fact that the Dominant does not abuse the power that their submissive has given them strengthens the trust the submissive has for them and deepens their relationship.

And yes, there are a lot of male "Doms" that abuse this because they just want to fuck around. But don't let the fact that a lot of male "Doms" are actually non-dominant asshats that are simply using submissive women to make them feel more dominant than they actually are give you the wrong idea about D/s.

Dammit, I promised myself I would try to be less critical and more understanding of others who identify as Doms. I may have to submit myself to someone for a spanking.

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Mono vs poly? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.598