quote:

ORIGINAL: SinFix

LOL.. I know I skipped that class, I instead went to the seduce tyrants class, much more fun and entertaining... But to stay somewhat on topic here, OP came onto this forum to pose a question to "masters", got answers from all types though resented the fact she got answers from fellow submissives. In all fairness, is that hazing? giving the name of the forum, should submissives keep their perspectives to themselves even though it could be very beneficial to newbies? The majority of newbs that come here, have that "cluelessness" about them of one true wayism, and would it benefit these forums to either "rename" them or keep status quo that has "regulars" appearing to haze and drive off the newcomers?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SinFix

Yes, but she did not say that upfront.. only after she got responses from subs

quote:

ORIGINAL: SinFix

I am just trying to help these forums move to more newb friendly territory, all of us regulars know but newbs just come in here blasting and then get hissy when they realize that they are also getting responses from all types and not reading the sticky that anyone can respond in any forum.. Since several "doms" have made it more than clear that this is a cliquey snarky hazing message board..

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiveSpark

quote:

ORIGINAL: SinFix

Yes, but she did not say that upfront.. only after she got responses from subs

Well given where she posted she shouldn't have to. That's why there's a general section. Why would she expect answers from s-types here?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SinFix

You would think, but clearly it is a problem since all are allowed to respond.. they either need to make it clear only respective types may answer in that forum or do completely away.. as for the years I have been observing here and especially in the master forum, newbs do not understand that they will get answers from all types not just those questioned..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

Ladies, ladies, ladies...

Stop fighting and come to Gauge.

Gauge will make it better.



***In before rebuke by Tyrant***

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeekingTrinity

~FRing it~

This brings up a really good point. Just how will we go about ensuring that strict enforcement of who replies where around here

Will we have to appear in person before the Mods and drop trou for genitalia inspection?
Do we submit to our local DNA testing center to confirm we are XX or XY?
Do we have to show our BDSM High Council Official Designation card at the door before we even think of touching our keyboards to reply?

Or perhaps it's the quality of the answer we give that is important, rather than whether we have a penis or a vagina...and whether we identify as Master, Mistress, Submissive, or Switch?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant

quote:

ORIGINAL: SinFix

LOL.. I know I skipped that class, I instead went to the seduce tyrants class, much more fun and entertaining...

Damn sure got your monies worth on that one.

quote:



But to stay somewhat on topic here, OP came onto this forum to pose a question to "masters", got answers from all types though resented the fact she got answers from fellow submissives. In all fairness, is that hazing? giving the name of the forum, should submissives keep their perspectives to themselves even though it could be very beneficial to newbies? The majority of newbs that come here, have that "cluelessness" about them of one true wayism, and would it benefit these forums to either "rename" them or keep status quo that has "regulars" appearing to haze and drive off the newcomers?

Sadly, what many newbies fail to realize that when an S/s replies in "Ask A Master" they are usually offering very sound advice from the same side of the kneel. I learn a great deal more from our /boys and /girls than I do any of the D's. Simply because I don't give a fuck how good the jolly is for the D, I care about the side of the kneel that I will be indulging my jollies with.

Jus sayin

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

I'm wounded...you don't care about my jollies. ~sniffles~

quote:

ORIGINAL: iwillsurrnder

I was talking to a Dom and He decided He wanted to meet me for dinner. i had agreed to meet with the condition that i do not get sexual on a first meet. When i put this condition on meeting, He changed from dinner to having a drink. He told me that in order to meet, He had to have full control over everything including whether or not there would be sex. i told Him that i could not agree to that. i am single and new to this and i am not here to be used by every Dom i meet for the first time and that is why i have this rule for myself. He told me that He doesn't think i am submissive because i have this rule in place to protect myself from being taken advantage of. He told me that i was trying to be in control. i was told by a friend that happens to be a Dom, i should have this rule in place. So, my question is...as long as i am not taken...do i have the right to say no sex at a first meet?

quote:

ORIGINAL: seekingreality

Here's how I'd respond to something like that:

I may be submissive, but I am not your submissive. At this moment, you don't have full control over me -- you have no control over me. The purpose of meeting is not for me to instantly submit to you; it's for us to see if we have any connection and even like each other. So your best course is to think of me as a human being first, not as a submissive, and make no presumptions, because at this moment we have no relationship and neither of us has any obligation to the other. If you want to try again and ask me out again, I'll give you one more chance. And if you think anything I said indicates something "wrong" about my submissiveness or you want to negatively critique anything I said, please just go away -- you aren't the dom I am looking for. My submissiveness is not given away but earned, and not easily earned. Remember and respect that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~FR~

I don't think of relationships as "right"-driven. Granted, some of that may be that I don't play at anything particularly kinky or dangerous.

A man's job, in my opinion, is to create a safe space for his girl. What that looks like will vary by circumstances and by couple, but in particular, to me, that means she can vibrantly be and grow as the beautiful creation she is, feeling loved, supported, cared-for, heard, seen. Anything less will be a temporary or an unsatisfying relationship all the way around.

A girl who feels that way, though, is happy to follow, be guided, serve, create a home. I'm not a micro-manager...I *like* that my girl is creative, intelligent, and has ideas I hadn't thought of. And I like that she is naturally caring about my needs and well-being. She appreciates what I bring to the relationship, and learns from it, as I appreciate what she brings and learn from it as well. It's a *dynamic,* a very apt term.

Her "right" is to be who she naturally is, and to be with a man who consciously and naturally helps nurture that. And to want to be the girl owned by this man in every way she can serve, joyously, in love, and not because I told her to.

Yes, there are times when I simply make the decision and we move on from there. But it's that dynamic that matters most.

Outside, she's a state-wide leader, very capable, and I don't meddle there--I listen mostly, support a few other times. She learns by bringing my strategic approach to her encounters, but that's from watching me, not me telling her what to do. Once in a great while, when something important is going on that she's missing, I'll point it out.

Thinking of all this in terms of "rights" just seems off the mark to me.