RE: monogamy-hopeless?

RE: monogamy-hopeless? (Full Version)

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

Message

MasterFireMaam -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/12/2007 7:26:33 AM)
If it's important to you, demand monogamy. You have the right to set your own boundaries as a healthy adult. There are plenty of people who are looking for sexual monogamy. Sit and write out what you can and can't accept emotionally/psychologically. Then, look for someone who matches. Master Fire

novicecourtesan -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/12/2007 7:27:11 AM)
thank you so much for your insights. I am so glad I found this forum! I have a feeling looking for a monogamous master will take time, but I'm willing to be patient. It's nice to know that there are so many options out of there. slave girl joy, you research is remarkable, but I don't think that webster's dictionary encompasses the full impact of courtesans, monogamous or otherwise, before World War I. As for monogamy--it may not have been every courtesan's choice, but it is mine. thank you all very much!

venusdiva429 -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/13/2007 3:59:46 PM)
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the heteiras yet. They're fascinating, as well.

mstrjx -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/13/2007 5:27:11 PM)
My experience with people who I have met through the Lifestyle is that many are not (monogamous). I have entertained 'couples' in my home who were married, but not to one another. I've met a ton of people who play interchangeably with others partners (who all know one another). I've met all types. I've always been different. Even before the Lifestyle. In college one time I managed to schedule two first-dates in the same day, and that was plenty of stress for me. To me, we (here) operate on a different intensity plane. It's easy enough in life for people to get hurt. Taking the chance of someone getting hurt here is more akin to getting crushed. I don't condone it, and I've never risked it. I've stayed the course in relationships that were less-than-the-best until they had sufficiently played out, and have lost at least one opportunity that I regret years later by my actions and integrity. As others have said, it might seem improbable, but there are some that exist. Good luck. Jeff

sleazybutterfly -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/13/2007 7:34:13 PM)
A very strange thing, I am not thin and I found a Master that is into monogamy (or rather, he found me). It took me some time, but don't ever lower your standards or think its not possible. So many told me that I had to be, yet they could sleep with other women anytime..now I have someone that is very satisfied being with me, and only me. Just don't be in such a hurry, this will take time and probably talking to a lot of different men. Keep your options open and know that if one isn't what you want, there is someone right behind him that might be. Best wishes.

completenz -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/13/2007 7:34:36 PM)
hi dont give up your search or settle for something that is not right for you. We do not share each other with anyone else,sexually or 'for play'. Why should we? it is perfect as it is. btw- we got engaged last night[:)] c

nephandi -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/13/2007 7:45:46 PM)
As a submissive, there is not reason why you can not have a man that have only you as a lover, not all Dominants want a harem. Some want a girlfrind or wife or whatever that is only for them and them being only for the woman in their lives. There are Dominant/submissive relationships where the Dom have 20 submissives, and there are old married cupples and would never dream of somone else that live a D/s lifestyle. Just say you want to be the only one and stick to it, if it is inportant to you, and i am sure you will eventualy find the man of your dreams. completenz, congratulations to you and your partner, i hope you will be very happy.

completenz -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/13/2007 11:40:28 PM)
nephandi thankyou for your kind words. We are very happy- dreams can come true!!! hugs c

Lordandmaster -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/13/2007 11:45:13 PM)
My first thought is that the men who visited courtesans and geishas were almost never monogamous. My second thought is that if you want a monogamous relationship, hold out till you get one. But then don't think of yourself as a courtesan or geisha, because one of the irreducible elements of that experience was having liaisons with men who also had other women at their disposal. quote: ORIGINAL: novicecourtesan I am searching for a dominant man in my area (NYC) and my age (27-39) who is willing to be monogamous. I feel like this is a very tall order. My fantasies of being a submissive has always been to belong to one man who will cherish and use me, like a courtesan or geisha. I am curious about many things and will probably break many boundaries, but I know that I am not into women or groups, and I would be sick if I thought my dom had to go elsewhere for sex.

nephandi -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/14/2007 6:15:43 AM)
i would agree whit on on this. Some concubines were bound to serve only one man, but he usualy had a wife to, sourtesans and geishas witch are basicaly the same thing from different cultures aldoth the geisha traditionaly did not offer sex, were somtimes hired by one wealthy costumer, but most of the time they serve whoever had money, they had many lovers and the men they visited might visit other concubines as well as usualy have wifes at home. I agree that this archetype might not be wise to follow if you want a monogamous relationship OP.

novicecourtesan -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/14/2007 8:45:59 AM)
Hi everyone... thanks for the good insights....a couple thoughts: Before the 20th century, virtually no man in any walk of life was expected to be monogamous. He was only expected to be discreet. In that sense, the courtesan was in no different position as the Victorian wife or even the medieval queen. So, as I've said, my request for mongamy is purely personal and not (entirely) philosophical. Any time I have tried not to be monogamous (to "keep my options open") or been with someone who isn't, I have been miserable. I plan to be monogamous to my dom, and because this is very new to me, I would trust him more if he were able to give me the same. There were numerous courtesans who were faithful to their lovers through thick and thin (Madame Pompadour comes to mind) and geishas, after their initial training and if they were talented and lucky, were almost always exclusively owned by one man (who usually had a wife). I could have more accurately called myself a novicegeisha, but then I thought that I would be disappointing all the men looking for a nice Japanese girl. :) The courtesans of India included devadasi, who were attached to a temple or to a saint, and many courtesans became queens, wives or queen mothers with virtually no problems (the practice of polygamy making things even more complicated). That said, I'm just hoping that someone will, you know, actually read my profile and not just make assumptions based on my handle. I like the title of courtesan; it has a courtly, royal ring to it, and they have a great history and have made great contributions to the arts of pleasure and lust. They didn't ask for monogamy even if they gave it, mostly because it wasn't something you could do until now. Consider me the 21st century courtesan. :) thanks again....

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/14/2007 8:53:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: novicecourtesan I like the title of courtesan; it has a courtly, royal ring to it, and they have a great history and have made great contributions to the arts of pleasure and lust. They didn't ask for monogamy even if they gave it, mostly because it wasn't something you could do until now. Consider me the 21st century courtesan. :) thanks again.... It is a noble station indeed, though you are right that it seems to be conflicting with your notions of desiring monogamy. A courtesan becomes the kept woman of a man only THROUGH years of practice and plying their trade on a multitude of courtiers. But this is the modern cyber world, so anything can be anything :) You'd also have pissed a lot of people off by calling yourself a geisha without the proper training.

novicecourtesan -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/14/2007 9:03:12 AM)
Training is why I'm here, and why I put "novice" in the title. I have no objection to serial monogamy--if things don't work out with one person, I can hope to find another one with similar desires. After all,. I don't expect to meet Dom Charming immediately--I've lived in NYC too long for that. :)

Lordandmaster -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/14/2007 9:05:27 AM)
This is totally uninformed. You seem to be more interested in casting history as you would like it to have been than in finding out how it really was. Good luck with your search. quote: ORIGINAL: novicecourtesan Before the 20th century, virtually no man in any walk of life was expected to be monogamous.

novicecourtesan -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/14/2007 9:10:03 AM)
LordandMaster I try not to get into arguments online, but I studied history in grad school and have written extensively about "other women" throughout the ages. I am happy to be informed differently with accurate evidence. If your intent is not to inform but to make assumptions and belittle, then I understand that as well.

asubmissiveheart -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/14/2007 9:35:21 AM)
Don't give up, many of us seek and are in monogamous relationships. It just takes time, sometimes it can take years. It took me a couple of years to find my current partner, but it was worth it.

littleone35 -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/14/2007 12:58:36 PM)
Wehn i met my Master one of the first ting i said is "if i decided to take you as my Master i want to be you only one" So monogamy was a must for me non-monogamy would be a deal breaker for me.In 2 week will be a year for Master and i and we pratice momogamy. it actually ( non-monogamy) would have been a deal breaker for him too. Stick to yourguns don't settle. Matt's littleone

Lordandmaster -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/14/2007 3:12:45 PM)
If you think pointing out your erroneous statements means belittling you, then so be it, I'll have to belittle you. Adultery was a crime in most American jurisdictions into the 20th century. Criminal adultery statues remain on the books in many jurisdictions. As far as the legal system is concerned men and women were expected to be monogamous. Anyway, human history is too long and complex for simplistic assertions like "men were not expected to be monogamous." By whom? When? Where? Not sure what they taught you in grad school. Maybe they deceived ya? quote: ORIGINAL: novicecourtesan I try not to get into arguments online, but I studied history in grad school and have written extensively about "other women" throughout the ages. I am happy to be informed differently with accurate evidence. If your intent is not to inform but to make assumptions and belittle, then I understand that as well.

Arastella -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/14/2007 3:33:02 PM)
What does manogamous mean anyway???

novicecourtesan -> RE: monogamy-hopeless? (2/14/2007 3:54:13 PM)
Lordandmaster: I have to smile. A lot. I cannot believe you throw adultery statutes at me. If a man was adulterous, up until recently, in most civilizations, they did....um, well nothing. If a woman was adulterous she could be divorced, beaten, etc-. And trust me, no state in the country is going to enforce an adultery statute criminally or civilly.. Those cases are thrown out all the time in courts and most of those laws--if they're still on the books--haven't been used in decades if not centuries. There are dueling laws leftover in many states too with a similar status--that gives you an idea of the analogy you're applying. Give a lawyer a laugh and ask him the last time he saw an adultery statute enforced against a husband. He won't waste his time looking. (Many of those states, when they did punish adultery, had laws only applicable to wives). A husband's adultery was not grounds for divorce or any compensation in virtually any country until this century. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this. A woman's adultery has always and will always be enough for dissolution of marriage. At least. Some powerful groups in many countries still want her stoned to death. Up until this century, sexual monogamy was enforced for wives in most cultures. It has never been enforced for husbands or men. Understand that I have no feelings about this one way or another. I was simply making the point that as a woman inspired by history, I can't very well model myself on a woman who demended and got monogamy from her husband or lover, even if my entire fantasy was playing the Victorian wife. I'd still have to add a dash of the 21st century if I ask for monogamy, whether I advertise as geisha or courtesan or potential wife. NYU had a pretty good grad school. After that, I practiced as a lawyer for two years. They taught me not to argue someone else's simplistic sentences by tossing around some of my own. You can have the last post on this. I'm done, since I've been taught nothing and it's off subject. ** Arastella Monogamy is having just one mate or sexual partner during the course of the relationship. I am asking that my dom be monogamous to me. I refer to monogamous as being sexually faithful, but also not emotionally connected to another sub during our relationship, however long it lasts. I think the ultimate definition depends on the person and the situation, but for me, it's an exclusive relationship. I know I can be at my most honest and fulfilled with one person who wants only me and I know I would give anything to someone who wants that.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125