quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline

To the OP'r:
 
These people are idiots playing idiotic games and do not have the least amount of common sense between them - they are just interested in the role play of "damsel in distress" and the erreant knight in shining armor coming to her rescue...
 
Everyt time I see this played out, it reminds me of Job Jacobs, who had all of these submissives convinced that he could discern a "true master" - I do not believe (and, correct me if I am wrong) that he EVER found any of them a dominant he approved of and/or that became their master... unless it was a close personal friend.

I am a tad wary of statements containing absolutes - always, never, must, invariably, every, just, only...

That's a pretty sweeping generalisation to draw from your anecdotal evidence, LoD. Certainly the case has been well argued here, that such an arrangement can be abused, but so can all arrangements between people. Evidence in one case is not proof in all.

Others have cited evidence that the practice of "protection" can, and for some does, have responsible use. The participants are not invariably deluded nor is it required they be either neurotic submissives or psychotic Dominants. Insisting on that begins to sound merely insulting rather than mindful.

What is the benefit of people pontificating on particulars within a lifestyle as varied as ours? Polite tolerance should come a little easier for us, one would think.


Z.

quote:

I believe the entire thing to be a machination of overactive imaginations and a role playing scenario that many others are sucked in to non-consensually..

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline

You are really not understanding what I am saying -

I do not agree with the entire premise of "protecting" someone...

It is disingenuous to believe that someone who has reached the age of majority is to be coddled and "protected" from the innanities of life OR that their "protector" is any more adept at finding someone who is suitable and/or not the alleged 'sociopath' so often stated as the reason for a protectors requisite presence.

Why would anyone want to be associated with an adult who cannot take care of themself on an emotional and intellectual level?

I believe the entire thing to be a machination of overactive imaginations and a role playing scenario that many others are sucked in to non-consensually...

(Personally, I would not want to be associated with anyone who required or used a protector - or - with anyone who would claim they could or should protect another in this way)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline

Someone decides that they are a 'pervert' and suddenly there is a change in the social strata and they become bumbling fools incapable of making decisions for themself?

And how many of these "psychotic dominants" are out there? Scare tactics and cautionary tales for children... silly rabbits, kicks are for trids.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline

Take responsibility for your lives - be friends to the new people (not some lofty all knowing "protector" to them) Treat them like sentient beings, instead of drooling children - and, simply stop inhibiting people's ability to live and to make the mistakes that they learn from.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline

Please note - "absolute or not" (has anyone else ever noticed how this is the latest way for telling someone that they are 'out of line' and non-PC?) this is how I feel about it - no one has to agree.

And, Z - I am being "polite" - I have several choice names for people who behave with such disregard for reality -I just have no "tolerance" for it - nor is there any reason I should...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

I believe understood you quite clearly from the first line of your first post. I hear what you are saying and know that you believe it passionately. I see the reason in it and applaud your message of self-responsibility. Sincerely.

I also take issue with both the limits and prejudice of your negative opinions and the personal and confrontational way in which you have chosen to present them.

quote:

Do I take it that since you quoted only the OP’s post that you didn’t bother with any of the intervening discussion? Are we talking about the straw-man example posed by the OP or about the modified and moderate examples that have appeared since?

Are we talking about the same thing?

quote:

Now this seems to be a tendency – those in this thread who see possible benefit in formal ‘protection’ mostly talk about the idea itself, in calm, respectful tones – those opposed prefer to sling mud, use playground slurs and try to paint everyone who has the gall to disagree with them as stupid or malignant. Of course if you confined your own reading to the OP’s first post there would be no reason for anyone to take this tirade personally in any way.

quote:

Good point, up until the ‘drooling children’ bit. Is such hyperbole helpful?

quote:

Actually I have not noticed a trend to invoking the use of absolutes as an excuse for dismissing another’s point of view. Perhaps it is too fresh to have reached my nose. However the tired label, PC, seems to be doing a lot of service today.

I find the presence of absolute terms to be an indicator, not a predictor. They switch my bullshit detector from stand-by to active. Absolutes tend to exclude possibilities, without consideration and to create barriers where none need to be.

quote:

If a confrontational and insulting tone is considered polite then we have some room for disagreement still.

Until then, please do not suppose that you are the "Grand Arbiter of Behavior" for leather (or, even for Collarme)

quote:

 I do not totally discount your experience or your opinion.

quote:

I have said several times in this thread, that abuse is possible, even likely in such a ‘protection’ arrangement – but it is not inevitable.

No where did I mention you personally in making my opinion known... no where did I threaten your manhood (or "honor! " ) by "calling you out".

quote:

That isn’t just opinion it is some people’s experience. Can you tolerate the notion that people have different but equally valid experiences to yours?

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I do not understand protection collars over the internet. You cannot harm a submissive over the internet via email, you cannot force her to do anything with you.

quote:

I think the whole protected and protector thingy just amounts to people playing out a kink they have, namley..to be a protecter or someone protected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

Oh how I long for the days when you were either collared....or you weren't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

Do I take it that since you quoted only the OP’s post that you didn’t bother with any of the intervening discussion? Are we talking about the straw-man example posed by the OP or about the modified and moderate examples that have appeared since?

quote:


Now this seems to be a tendency – those in this thread who see possible benefit in formal ‘protection’ mostly talk about the idea itself, in calm, respectful tones – those opposed prefer to sling mud, use playground slurs and try to paint everyone who has the gall to disagree with them as stupid or malignant. Of course if you confined your own reading to the OP’s first post there would be no reason for anyone to take this tirade personally in any way.

quote:


I find the presence of absolute terms to be an indicator, not a predictor. They switch my bullshit detector from stand-by to active. Absolutes tend to exclude possibilities, without consideration and to create barriers where none need to be.

If a confrontational and insulting tone is considered polite then we have some room for disagreement still. I do not totally discount your experience or your opinion. I have said several times in this thread, that abuse is possible, even likely in such a ‘protection’ arrangement – but it is not inevitable. That isn’t just opinion it is some people’s experience. Can you tolerate the notion that people have different but equally valid experiences to yours?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

Some submissives really do need protection, even if it is just as an asshole filter.

quote:

I have you on faves because of it, btw.