Starting a D/s relationship
Wolf Whitewater
male Dominant who is quite a bit older than I am and was looking for a
submissive female. He seemed friendly and came with decent refs, so I
was all ready to meet in real life when I returned to my home town in
the midwest.
That is, until he told me that he planned on starting a D/s
relationship right away and didn't figure there was any real need or
point to getting to know each other first, he feels that trust and
knowledge etc will develop as the D/s relationship grows.
I think almost the exact opposite, that in order to have a successful
D/s relationship, you have to get to know each other and have a
friendly relationship where you know enough about your partner to trust
them enough to submit to them BEFORE you start playing around with D/s.
I told him this and he couldn't understand why I thought that way, so I
tried to explain, in a number of lengthy emails back and forth. He was
really trying to get it, but just couldn't, and for my part, I felt
like I was trying to talk to a brick wall -- it wasn't that he was
rejecting what I was explaining, he just didn't seem to be able to wrap
his mind around the concept.
Since that time he's told me that he doesn't want to take
responsibility for having a pet, which I think is a big red flag. If he
doesn't want to deal with having to take care of an animal, what kind
of a life will *I* have as his sub? It is really making me wonder.
My question is this:
Who's right here? And am I overreacting about the whole "Oh, I like
animals but I don't want to take care of one, I'll just rent one if I
want to spend time with an animal" thing? Or is it really symtomatic of
a way of thinking that I think might be dangerous to me?
I'm also not sure why he feels that a relationship built on trust and
friendship is not at all necessary before getting into D/s. If anybody
can help on that, I'd really appreciate it.
Whitewater, sorely puzzled.
Steve Pope
I'm not sure where his head is on this, but I personally -- at
this point in my life -- would want to see at least a spark of
d/s chemistry fairly early in a new relationship, if we were
proceeding with the belief that a more full-blown d/s relationship
would develop.
On the trust issue, from a dom's perspective if the potential
sub is not at least somewhat trusting from the start of the
relationship that poses a serious problem. But he certainly
isn't solving that problem by suggesting trust isn't necessary.
Perhaps from his perspective the concept that d/s "starts" at a
distinct point after the relationship otherwise begins seems odd.
Perhaps this sort of phasing hasn't been his experience in
the past so it seems an unexpected position for you to take.
But that doesn't explain him not trying to understand you better.
Regarding him not wanting to take responsibility of a non-human
pet, that could work either way -- it could mean he's avoiding
responsibility and therefore would avoid other responsibilities, or
it could mean he's careful about which responsibilities he
commits to, which would be a good trait.
Just a few thoughts.
Steve
Violet Tigress
spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Regarding him not wanting to take responsibility of a non-human
> pet, that could work either way --
************
Thumbs, baby. It'a all avout the thumbs ^_^
Brian G.
Well, it all depends whether you both want a long term relationship or not,
I guess. I have met twice with people and played quite fast after some email
and telephone chats, and have them as friends now, but I'm not in ds
relationships, full time with either of them. But then, I'm not up for that
24/7 anyhow.
So, I suppose it could just be that he wants to keep scratching his itch,
but wants no commitments other than your safety and his pleasure till he
decides otherwise. Sounds a bit shallow, unless he is willing to say so.
I agree, that if you want your pleasure from the start, that he and you must
trust each other, and know each other before any serious play can occur. You
have said in the past that you need the trust and if he cannot see the way
to do that is by going slow, then I'd say you are not compatible. He is
entitled to his views, but if they are not yours, and he cannot get it, then
one wonders what else he cannot get.
Brian
--
--
___________________________________________________________________________
Any opinions expressed above, are just that, opinions.
please add salt to taste.
Only my Eyes are blind....
switc...@blueyonder.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________________
T. Eckhart
>My question is this:
>
>Who's right here? And am I overreacting about the whole "Oh, I like
>animals but I don't want to take care of one, I'll just rent one if I
>want to spend time with an animal" thing? Or is it really symtomatic of
>a way of thinking that I think might be dangerous to me?
Neither of you are right or wrong -- you just have different needs
and rules about who you'll have a Ds relationship with.
I'm more like him. I look for a Ds relationship first and
foremost. We talk and compare common interests and if that seems good
there's the formal training period. Its that training period that
determines if anything else happens later.
That said there is no sex of any type during this training period
because I think that can cloud a person's perception of the Ds. Since I'm
primarily interested in the Ds, I want both of us to evaluate the
relationship without romantic or sexual over/undertones.
Romance and sex and friendship can follow but for me because I
made the decision that vanilla is just not what I want or need, I find
that more formality works to achieve my goals. Now my slave, Fox, and I
have fallen in love but I think since we started out with Ds as the
relationship model that love only strengthens the Ds.
Like I said, no right or wrong, no correct or incorrect way --
just what works for you. This man doesn't have the same approach as you
to starting a relationship? Then why pursue it with him? Find someoen
whose approach is closer to your own. You're much more likely to be happy
that way in my opinion.
--
--
Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips, & Chains,
TammyJo Eckhart (teck...@kiva.net)
Author, Activist, Educator
SilverOz
Wolf Whitewater <Aqui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That is, until he told me that he planned on starting a D/s
> relationship right away and didn't figure there was any real need or
> point to getting to know each other first, he feels that trust and
> knowledge etc will develop as the D/s relationship grows.
>
Well.. it is possible that he doesn't mean "kneel bitch" but that he
wants to get a feel for the chemistry.
In my first D&S relationship, we did a lot of talking on the phone and
emailing - long distance relationship - before doing any D&S. THe
talking about what we wanted and how we felt was the "getting to know"
and we were more or less seeing each other as dom and sub before we met.
I found that I needed to have that "seduction" phase before I trusted
enough to be able to submit. It was me getting to know him and having a
gut level feel of his respect for me. I was able to do that over email
and phone. If you already feel that he respects you and there's a
chance this might work, perhaps you could let go enough to try it?
I note that it can be difficult to switch gears between "friends" and
"dom and sub". You might find it easier to meet him with the idea of
him as dom and do the getting to know that way, than to require you both
to change gears. The first impression is important.
I was quite defensive of myself. I did the actions, but I protected
myself a lot even though we were doing D&S until quite a way into the
relationship.
It did take me a while to realise it had to be two way. That he
couldn't be expected to be the only seducer, that I had to convince him
that he was safe with me. That I wouldn't undermine him, or make his
life difficult, or not work as hard as I was asking him to.
You might want to consider how much work you have put into seducing him,
and how much effort you are going to put into your submission, compared
to how much you think he'llhave to put in to trigger that submission.
But if you think he hasn't put enough into the seduction phase, so that
you don't have enough trust in him to try a bit and see how it goes,
maybe tell him that. Not "I have a theory about how D&S works" but "I
am still too defensive of myself, I don't feel safe enough yet."
If you do that though, you might have to add how he can make you safer
without him having to undo a lot of "best friends and equals" later on.
(Yes, you should be best friends and equals, but the mindset is complex)
SilverOz
Morag R
Whitewater <Aqui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That is, until he told me that he planned on starting a D/s
> relationship right away and didn't figure there was any real need or
> point to getting to know each other first, he feels that trust and
> knowledge etc will develop as the D/s relationship grows.
>
> I think almost the exact opposite, that in order to have a successful
> D/s relationship, you have to get to know each other and have a
> friendly relationship where you know enough about your partner to trust
> them enough to submit to them BEFORE you start playing around with D/s.
I am much more on your side of the fence with this one. As others have
mentioned, it's possible he would like a sense for the chemistry, but
he could get that by suggesting you have a d/s date of some kind, or a
series of dates, rather than starting a d/s Relationship Right Now.
> I told him this and he couldn't understand why I thought that way, so I
> tried to explain, in a number of lengthy emails back and forth. He was
> really trying to get it, but just couldn't, and for my part, I felt
> like I was trying to talk to a brick wall -- it wasn't that he was
> rejecting what I was explaining, he just didn't seem to be able to wrap
> his mind around the concept.
This would ring a warning bell for me, it's not a hard concept to get
your head around. One does not need to agree with it to get one's head
around it.
If I thought his "not understanding" routine was a bit of a ploy to
make me feel silly about the position I was taking, I'd probably
consider that a warning too. Personally I expect dominants to be more
up to speed on basic differences in human relationship dynamics for
what should be obvious reasons.
> Since that time he's told me that he doesn't want to take
> responsibility for having a pet, which I think is a big red flag. If he
> doesn't want to deal with having to take care of an animal, what kind
> of a life will *I* have as his sub? It is really making me wonder.
I agree with others this might be an indicator that points either way.
I think I would ask the very question you have posed here, it's a good
question.
> Who's right here?
Heh. I think the better question is "are we right for each other" and
I think your spider sense is the only thing that will tell you that.
> And am I overreacting about the whole "Oh, I like
> animals but I don't want to take care of one, I'll just rent one if I
> want to spend time with an animal" thing? Or is it really symtomatic of
> a way of thinking that I think might be dangerous to me?
Don't worry about overreacting. If you don't like his values, keep on
moving down the road until you find someone you click with. My ex is
out there and has a strong "friends first" value set. Dominants with
that view are out there.
> I'm also not sure why he feels that a relationship built on trust and
> friendship is not at all necessary before getting into D/s. If anybody
> can help on that, I'd really appreciate it.
The cynical part of me says that if you start with d/s it's easier to
build something that is unstable to his advantage, but if I apply the
time honoured "what is more likely?" rule, it's probably just a matter
of him wanting to get his rocks off faster. In which case, that brings
me back to the idea of d/s dating as a compromise position.
MoragR
--
Email - morag *at* homemail *dot* com *dot* au
Steve Pope
[snippage]
>The cynical part of me says that if you start with d/s it's easier to
>build something that is unstable to his advantage, but if I apply the
>time honoured "what is more likely?" rule, it's probably just a matter
>of him wanting to get his rocks off faster. In which case, that brings
>me back to the idea of d/s dating as a compromise position.
This works if the participants can approach d/s dating in
a "zipless fuck" mode. If not, if one or both of them
engages in significant post-processing after a d/s encounter,
then you're going to need some level of emotional relationship for
post-support, and you're back to the original quandary.
Steve
Nena and Al
wrote:
>I think almost the exact opposite, that in order to have a successful
>D/s relationship, you have to get to know each other and have a
>friendly relationship where you know enough about your partner to trust
>them enough to submit to them BEFORE you start playing around with D/s.
My Al and I both knew that we wanted a d/s relationship, so we started
out with one. We've been together for 6 years now, and I think it's
been pretty successful.
>Since that time he's told me that he doesn't want to take
>responsibility for having a pet, which I think is a big red flag. If he
>doesn't want to deal with having to take care of an animal, what kind
>of a life will *I* have as his sub? It is really making me wonder.
I don't think this is a red flag. I have old cats. I love them, but
when they go they will not be replaced because I don't want to take
responsibility for having a pet again. That doesn't say anything
about how seriously I take my responsibilities to my sub.
Lots of folks jump into pet ownership without thinking about all that
it entails. Your fella understands that pets are a commitment that he
doesn't want to take on. To me, this would be reassuring. I'd assume
he's given the same or more thought to taking on a sub.
>Who's right here? And am I overreacting about the whole "Oh, I like
>animals but I don't want to take care of one, I'll just rent one if I
>want to spend time with an animal" thing? Or is it really symtomatic of
>a way of thinking that I think might be dangerous to me?
What is right is that you do what you think is best for yourself. If
you're uncomfortable with the guy and his decisions, you're probably
better off moving on and finding someone you're more comfortable with.
I really don't think that the animal thing is an indication of much,
though.
>I'm also not sure why he feels that a relationship built on trust and
>friendship is not at all necessary before getting into D/s. If anybody
>can help on that, I'd really appreciate it.
For my Al and I, the trust, friendship, and d/s all grew together. I
don't assume that things would work this way for everyone, but it
worked really well for us.
Nena
Spyral Fox
wrote:
>On 28 Sep 2005 18:51:48 -0700, "Wolf Whitewater" <Aqui...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
[....]
>>Since that time he's told me that he doesn't want to take
>>responsibility for having a pet, which I think is a big red flag. If he
>>doesn't want to deal with having to take care of an animal, what kind
>>of a life will *I* have as his sub? It is really making me wonder.
>
>I don't think this is a red flag. I have old cats. I love them, but
>when they go they will not be replaced because I don't want to take
>responsibility for having a pet again. That doesn't say anything
>about how seriously I take my responsibilities to my sub.
I'd personally call it a small red flag -- something that makes one
seek out more information. In and of itself, it's not a deal-breaker,
for the reasons Nena suggests... but I'd want to know more.
Is the problem the fur & shedding? That would be a deal-beaker --
partly because I'm not giving up my furry critters any more than I'd
give up a child, and partly because it seems like a pretty superficial
thing to me, although I recognize that to some people the absence of a
few stray hairs is more important than the absence of the
unconditional love & companionship of a critter. I manage the hair in
my house -- brushing the animals, vacuuming, using throws on the
furniture, and a lint-brush on my own clothing. Seems to me that
other people could, too. One of my first dates (without any more) was
a guy who had dumped a cat a few months after a divorce, because his
ex-wife was in an apartment & couldn't have the cat with her, and the
cat shed on his trousers.
I feel pretty much the same about the complaint that cats destroy the
furniture (claw-trimming is not done because....??) or that dogs bark
(I have *shelties* and have never had a barking problem.... could it
be training?) or that fish mean that water is spilled on the floor
(well, OK, so they're more home-decor than pets, but you can clean it
up and manage it)..
Is it the difficulty in taking sudden out-of-town trips due to the
problem in finding a pet sitter in a short time? That's a reasonable
reason for me, if the person has a lifestyle that requires SUDDEN
travel. I'm lucky in that my parents are usually around to take care
of my critters for free, but there is also an excellent in-home
petsitting service I can use (owned by a lady who lives a few blocks
from me) if I have a few days notice. Some people, however are in
places where pet-sitters are few & far between, or where the economics
of the trip vs. the animal's care are prohibitive. I'd need to know
more, but it would raise some questions.
Is the problem that feeding & exercising on a daily basis is too
tedious? If they won't do that for a pet, would they find caring for
a submissive is too much work? Laziness, as I mentioned above, is a
concern -- if it's too much trouble to scoop a cat box once or twice a
day, or to take a dog for a run outside an apartment two or three
times a day, I'd wonder how they could expect to manage a sub without
becoming bored. OTOH, if the issue is that they can't have a pet
becasue they ahve a randomizing work schedule, never know when they
will be home to feed / exercise /etc. because the times can change by
several hours from day to day based on conditions, well, that's a
GREEN flag, because it shows consideration for living things.
--
Spyral Fox (spyra...@cox.net)
[formerly spyr...@aol.com]
I promise to do something about my own website eventually.
Stephen Harris is very kindly mirroring the cookbook (errors & all) at http://bdsm.spuddy.org/ssbbcooks/
Thorney
> When I was on the east coast I started emailing back and forth with a
> male Dominant who.... I
> was all ready to meet in real life when I returned to my home town in
> the midwest.
>
> That is, until he told me that he planned on starting a D/s
> relationship right away and didn't figure there was any real need or
> point to getting to know each other first, he feels that trust and
> knowledge etc will develop as the D/s relationship grows.
>
> I think almost the exact opposite,
My instinct is on your side. There has been D/s talk,
you know there is a common D/s interest - if you want more
than a brief fling, you are right to want to seek other
common grounds for communication before getting deeper into
the D/s. Or set fairl stiff limits on how far the D/s goes
and let it grow as other parts of the relationship grow.
Of course my instincts are not always good; my first
marriage, where I followed my principles, was a major
disaster. In my relationship with Mrs. Thorney, I really
wanted to build a professional-colleagues-working-together
first; she wanted to hop into bed first. She won, but we had
talked enough that she was sure, even if I wasn't, that the
professional thing would work out. It did, very well, as
well as the sex, and the D/s came along slowly and later as
she was hesitant about it, and nearly broke things off a few
times as she discovered my taste in porn. Luckily, the good
sex and good professional relationship carried it through -
and it probably did need both.
--
Thorney
------------
A few of my past posts are at
http://www.geocities.com/Thorney1z/stories.html
rft777
normal relationship is essential to a D/S one
otherwise where do you go when the D/S relationship has problems - as
all relationships have problems, other than to that place of love trust
and care that should be at any relationships core
syntax problems, but hopefully comprehensible
yours
rft
Chaos Glitter
"Wolf Whitewater" <Aqui...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127958708....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> When I was on the east coast I started emailing back and forth with a
> male Dominant who is quite a bit older than I am and was looking for a
> submissive female. He seemed friendly and came with decent refs, so I
> was all ready to meet in real life when I returned to my home town in
> the midwest.
>
> That is, until he told me that he planned on starting a D/s
> relationship right away and didn't figure there was any real need or
> point to getting to know each other first, he feels that trust and
> knowledge etc will develop as the D/s relationship grows.
>
> I think almost the exact opposite, that in order to have a successful
> D/s relationship, you have to get to know each other and have a
> friendly relationship where you know enough about your partner to trust
> them enough to submit to them BEFORE you start playing around with D/s.
I think it takes some time to build the trust necessary for good D/s. With
me, I`m probably a bit more extreme than the average person, but until
someone goes out of their way to *prove* that they deserve my trust, they
aren`t more than aquaintances that don`t get within an arms-length of my
submission.
But, I don`t do scenes, and my type of submitting isn`t the kind I can
easily just turn off, its mostly full-time. When I choose to submit to
someone, it isn`t just during playtime because I don`t work that way. So,
if he (or you) are just looking for a scene, then maybe it doesn`t take as
much trust. But I can`t imagine any mostly-full-time D/s relationship
starting off with anything but trust-building friendship. Afterall, letting
someone mess with your head in the ways D/s is very capable of is dangerous.
`kay
Morag R
<spyra...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:47:58 GMT, Nena and Al <m...@madamegiggles.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 28 Sep 2005 18:51:48 -0700, "Wolf Whitewater" <Aqui...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> [....]
> >>Since that time he's told me that he doesn't want to take
> >>responsibility for having a pet, which I think is a big red flag. If he
> >>doesn't want to deal with having to take care of an animal, what kind
> >>of a life will *I* have as his sub? It is really making me wonder.
> >
> >I don't think this is a red flag. I have old cats. I love them, but
> >when they go they will not be replaced because I don't want to take
> >responsibility for having a pet again. That doesn't say anything
> >about how seriously I take my responsibilities to my sub.
>
> I'd personally call it a small red flag -- something that makes one
> seek out more information. In and of itself, it's not a deal-breaker,
> for the reasons Nena suggests... but I'd want to know more.
[lots of useful points to ponder snipped]
Another purely personal observation:
I have a profile up on OkCupid and they give people the option to
indicate whether they:
have cats (or dogs);
like cats (or dogs);
dislike cats (or dogs); or
don't want to indicate any view (you can leave it blank).
They don't appear to have an option for allergy which I think is a flaw
in their system, but those who tick "dislike" for either cats or dogs
are red flagging to me.
Setting aside the issue of whether one is prepared to take on the
responsibility for a domestic animal, I think disliking an entire
species is pretty small minded. I would wonder what other classes of
diverse living things they have decided they "don't like".
Spyral Fox
>Setting aside the issue of whether one is prepared to take on the
>responsibility for a domestic animal, I think disliking an entire
>species is pretty small minded. I would wonder what other classes of
>diverse living things they have decided they "don't like".
Oh, I *do* like your way with words!
anne fraser
wrote:
<respectful snip>
>
>I think almost the exact opposite, that in order to have a successful
>D/s relationship, you have to get to know each other and have a
>friendly relationship where you know enough about your partner to trust
>them enough to submit to them BEFORE you start playing around with D/s.
>
I'm a rather dark and reclusive person, so that belief wouldn't work
for me, and hasn't done. Getting to "know" me in a superficial sense
probably takes about 5 years, even with all my enthusiastic and
utterly self-serving revelations. Honest enough as far as it goes,
but necessarily skewed by my own subjectively flawed mirror.
>
Trust? I trust everyone I meet to act in their own self-interest. So
the only trick is spending about 5 years analyzing by observation and
inquiry what that individual believes hir self-interest actually is.
Friendship usually takes about 10 years.
>
Am I willing to wait all that long and invest all that much time in
getting to a BDSM relationship? Of course not, life is short.
>
Ask yourself the same question about an unfamiliar food. How long
before it's safe to try, for you? When a large group of Scandinavian
immigrants came to America, they firmly believed that tomatoes were
poisonous (there were certain dietary/biological reasons, many
Scandinavians became violently ill after eating tomatoes.) A large
group of Sicilian immigrants thought Scandinavians were stupid and
crazy, as they'd been eating tomatoes for a couple of centuries with
no ill-effects. Both groups acted on their experience, and spoke
truthfully. Which is factual? Both. Only individual experience
dictates the result of trying the new thing.
>
You may trust in a much shorter time than I do. The body of your past
posts indicates to me that you want absolute guarantees of safety
before you proceed. I don't believe such guarantees are available in
any aspect of life, ever. There are earthquakes, volcano's,
hurricanes, car wrecks, meteors and planetoids falling from the sky.
Drought. Economic collapse (my area is enjoying that now, and the
party's just starting.) Starvation, plague, bad genes.
>
Since you and I traditionally disagree, why do I bother to write at
all? Well, because I might just enunciate for others the *submissive*
face of what this dominate may be thinking or feeling.
>
For myself, I figure I've got 80 years to live at the most. Probably
less, given my lifestyle and present age. I'm not willing to miss
life experience waiting for guarantees which would be specious at
best. If I have to live encased in plastic, I'm not alive at all, I'd
spend my whole life waiting for my life to begin.
>
All life as I understand it, ends in death The only question is when,
and what you filled the time allotted to you, with. Sorry about that
sentence.
>
I'll have mine jammed full of feeling, thank you, however long it may
be. You obviously feel differently. How will you feel on your
deathbed?
>
>Since that time he's told me that he doesn't want to take
>responsibility for having a pet, which I think is a big red flag. If he
>doesn't want to deal with having to take care of an animal, what kind
>of a life will *I* have as his sub? It is really making me wonder.
>
I have animals in my life, I will always have animals in my life, and
I discard out of hand anyone who does not need/want animals in my life
because I know there were always be conflict. Spyral has outlined
many practical ways of dealing with animals, and she's soooo right!
Would I discard a would be lover who couldn't deal with my animals? In
a *heartbeat." But it wouldn't be about trusting him to care for me,
it would be about trusting him to deal responsibly and humanely with
the animals in my absence. How someone behaves toward animals
dictates to me their level of empathy for living things. I am, as of
this writing, a living thing. Mostly, I'm the defender of my animals.
My view is admittedly very closed, and probably of no use to the OP.
>
>My question is this: Who's right here?
>
Both are correct. The fact that you seem (yet again) to need
confirmation of some universal truth speaks to the apparent fact that
you need external validation of your "rightness," before you can make
a decision. My entirely subjective take is that you will need to find
a dominant person who is content with dithering and blame assignment.
>
>And am I overreacting about the whole "Oh, I like
>animals but I don't want to take care of one, I'll just rent one if I
>want to spend time with an animal" thing? Or is it really symtomatic of
>a way of thinking that I think might be dangerous to me?
>
Not necessarily, as others have pointed out. It does point to
incompatibility, IMNSHO.
>
>I'm also not sure why he feels that a relationship built on trust and
>friendship is not at all necessary before getting into D/s. If anybody
>can help on that, I'd really appreciate it.
>
>Whitewater, sorely puzzled.
>
Maybe. To me, you just read "desperately insecure and totally lacking
in willingness to accept responsibility for decisions." But that's
just me, after all.
regards,
anne fraser
Foole Groupie
SSBB Diplomatic Corps
Northwestern Sierra and points south, California
Nena and Al
>Setting aside the issue of whether one is prepared to take on the
>responsibility for a domestic animal, I think disliking an entire
>species is pretty small minded. I would wonder what other classes of
>diverse living things they have decided they "don't like".
I've met a few dogs I like, but by and large, I don't care for them.
There's really nothing about them that I find particularly appealing.
If I had to check a box, I'd check "dislike dogs". What does that say
about me?
I guess that you can assume that I'm small minded because I don't like
dogs. I think that all it says is that if you have dogs, I'm a poor
match for you. I can think of a lot of other pet and non-pet species
that I don't care for. I wouldn't tease or torture any of them nor
would I condone that, and I don't like seeing them squashed on the
road. I'm nice to my friends' pets. I'm just not a pet person.
My preferences about pets are the same as any other preferences. I
don't really like children, either, or possums, salesmen, field mice,
or capri pants. These things don't translate into me being narrow
minded or mistreating diverse living things with which I share space.
If you're saying that one should avoid people who are cruel to
animals, I definitely agree with you. I'd even agree with the idea
that someone who is tweeky or obsessive about their dislike requires
some closer scrutiny. If the implication is that someone who doesn't
like cats or dogs or what have you might be similarly judgemental
about diverse kinds of people, I think that's a stretch.
Nena
Violet Tigress
> that someone who is tweeky or obsessive about their dislike requires
> some closer scrutiny.
I fear jello. I am tweeky & obsessive about it.
Nena and Al
>I would go with my gut instinct - in my estimation too, a good working
>normal relationship is essential to a D/S one
>
>otherwise where do you go when the D/S relationship has problems - as
>all relationships have problems, other than to that place of love trust
>and care that should be at any relationships core
You're talking about normal relationships and d/s relationships as if
they are different things. How do they differ?
Nena
SilverOz
Morag R <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> They don't appear to have an option for allergy which I think is a flaw
> in their system, but those who tick "dislike" for either cats or dogs
> are red flagging to me.
>
> Setting aside the issue of whether one is prepared to take on the
> responsibility for a domestic animal, I think disliking an entire
> species is pretty small minded. I would wonder what other classes of
> diverse living things they have decided they "don't like".
ON the other hand...
a very good, sensitive, caring, friend of mine who is a healer of no
mean ability doesn't like dogs.
She's had bad experiences when young, and has a fairly bad automatic
reaction to them. She can tolerate smaller ones for a short period,
large ones upset her greatly.
Given "like/dislike" as the only way to express this, I'd expect her to
tick "dislike". Doesn't care if other people have them, loves cats, but
is scared of dogs on a deep gut level.
I seldom pay any attention to binary choices without explanation. At
most I'd be curious as to why they ticked one or the other - after all
they might tick "like" but only because they know it's "Wrong" not to
like dogs...
SilverOz
T. Eckhart
Well, for one in a d/s relationship there should be an agreed upon
power dynamic and authority. That is quite different from a normal
relationship where hopefully you are both equals (and fight for power and
authority).
I think when you have problems, regardless of the relationship
type, you go back to the foundation of the relationship to find your
answers. If it was based on love, do you still love each other? If it
was based on common interests, have those changed? If it was based on
shared ethic/moral, have those changed? If it was based on a power
exchange, has that changed?
Lusus Naturae
>I fear jello. I am tweeky & obsessive about it.
[fanfare, as diminutive caped hero vaults onto the stage]
Fear not, my lady! Thou hast but to point me the direction
where I may encounter this molded monster that affrights thee.
My faithful spoon will I thrust into its very heart -- aye, up
to the hilt! I will consume it utterly and it shall be no more!
--
Lusus Naturae, who *loves* anything made of jello
Morag R
<m...@madamegiggles.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 17:03:21 +1000, Morag R <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >Setting aside the issue of whether one is prepared to take on the
> >responsibility for a domestic animal, I think disliking an entire
> >species is pretty small minded. I would wonder what other classes of
> >diverse living things they have decided they "don't like".
>
> I've met a few dogs I like, but by and large, I don't care for them.
Don't care for them is different to dislike as I read it.
I don't care for ferrets for example, they're animals that I would not
choose to keep, and I can see they have some habits I would find hard
to deal with.
But dislike them? Why would I dislike them? I would choose to leave
the question blank if there was a ferret option. They're just
creatures, and there's no habit a ferret has that some human out there
couldn't out-gross.
> There's really nothing about them that I find particularly appealing.
> If I had to check a box, I'd check "dislike dogs". What does that say
> about me?
It suggests a potential lack of sync with my values, nothing more.
That doesn't mean I think someone who does not sync with my values is a
bad person, or that they are likely to torture kittens - it just means
they're not a good partner option.
To explain, I would have a similar reaction if someone said "I dislike
Japanese food".
I find sushi very challenging food, and occasionally it makes me ill, I
suspect because of an iodine reaction. But "Japanese food" as a class
of food options is extremely broad, and if I take the trouble to get to
know it, then I can find things I like to eat. That kind of awareness
and optimism in the face of life's complexity is something I'm looking
for in a partner.
> My preferences about pets are the same as any other preferences. I
> don't really like children, either, or possums, salesmen, field mice,
> or capri pants. These things don't translate into me being narrow
> minded or mistreating diverse living things with which I share space.
I did not say anything about mistreatment.
My remark about narrow mindedness is based on my observation that to
claim a dislike of an entire species potentially speaks to one of three
things:
a) unconscious ignorance about their diversity - which is no crime, but
in the age-group of partners I'm looking for it would be a worry to me
because it indicates intellectual laziness to me. Just like Japanese
food is not limited to sushi, dogs are not limited to snarling mutts or
overenthusiastic labs.
b) some character based tweakiness which I note you've already
mentioned. People who say cats are sneaky and lazy are people who
probably don't share my values about independence and control. People
who say dogs are slobbering machines on springs with no dignity are
people who I think probably have some issues about demonstrative
behaviour - which as a bottom or sub I find somewhat red flaggy.
There's also something in here about the Foole's proverb about no dom
guys calling themselves "Sir Aluminium Puppy".
c) a willingness to cultivate or, at the least, accept as OK, a dislike
of a class of beings that are neither good nor bad when taken as a
whole. I'm careful these days to say I don't hate things because as
soon as I start putting that kind of energy into something or someone
it controls me. Someone who is happy to carry around that negativity -
like a guy who can't shut up with cat hating jokes - is a bad match for
me.
NB, this is not about simply not being interested. This is about
active dislike, especially those who seem to take pride in their
dislike. I accept that some people are in this boat because of bad
experiences, but that still doesn't make them a good match for me. I'm
sure I'm not a good match for someone who needs a partner that is
totally fine about their body image either. In this context I also see
a difference between "I have trouble with X, and that is that" and "I
have trouble with X, but I'm trying to overcome it". In my case, I'm
working on the body image stuff.
> If you're saying that one should avoid people who are cruel to
> animals, I definitely agree with you. I'd even agree with the idea
> that someone who is tweeky or obsessive about their dislike requires
> some closer scrutiny. If the implication is that someone who doesn't
> like cats or dogs or what have you might be similarly judgemental
> about diverse kinds of people, I think that's a stretch.
That's not a link I'm making, the judgement by itself is enough to put
me off- whether about dogs, food, people, kids, Australian art, or
anything else that is sufficiently broad and deep to take a lifetime to
study and understand. It's about an approach to life and intellect,
rather than an indicator for their attitude to humans. I actually
tolerate a fairly high amount of misanthropy in my partners.
At base I suspect this is a values thing. FWIW, a mate of mine has
"dislikes dogs" on his profile, and I've chatted with someone who has
"dislikes cats" on his profile. In both cases I had sufficient
information to suggest that definitional issues were probably involved
as much as anything else - like your "don't care for it" example.
One question, if you've met a few dogs you like, why would you say you
dislike dogs instead of just leaving it blank? Maybe someone out there
who you want to meet has one of those dogs you will end up liking.
Chains and Freedom candf at kkeane dot com
> Is the problem that feeding & exercising on a daily basis is too
> tedious? If they won't do that for a pet, would they find caring for
> a submissive is too much work?
You made many excellent points. But as one who doesn't have a pet for this
exact reason, I have to disagree with you on this. I like a cat or a dog. I
enjoy petting them, I enjoy playing with them, and if it was free, I would
certainly have one or more. But I don't like either enough to care for it
every day.
I also like a sub. I would like her a lot more than a cat or a dog, and
enough to care for her.
If this rationale allows any conclusions at all, I'd say that it should be a
green flag: the person carefully thinks about the implications and
obligations *before* entering into a commitment.
--
Offering chains and freedom for nice ladies in Southern California.
http://www.geocities.com/prison_lover/index.html
Steve Pope
>One question, if you've met a few dogs you like, why would you say you
>dislike dogs instead of just leaving it blank? Maybe someone out there
>who you want to meet has one of those dogs you will end up liking.
As always is the case in English, "dislike dogs" can be either
specific, general, or categorical and there's absolutely no way to
tell which is intended other than by context, or preferably
by the user of this phrase spelling it out for you.
If I've disliked at least two dogs in my life, then I "dislike dogs"
in the specific sense, but not in the general sense unless I usually
dislike most dogs. To say I categorically dislike dogs means
there are no exceptions, not even a single dog. Absent context,
"I dislike dogs" could mean any of these three, hence is ambiguous.
Tangentially related, there is an old concept I've run into now
and then that a man should be "good with dogs" if he's
to make a good husband (or perhaps, lover). I think this says
something of the huge importance of domestic animal species to
human culture -- one's relationship to dogs (and to a lesser
extent, cats) has long been a sort of social litmus test.
Steve
Violet Tigress
Lusus Naturae <lususn...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Fear not, my lady! Thou hast but to point me the direction
> where I may encounter this molded monster that affrights thee.
***
It is.... over there *timidly pointing across the banquet hall towards
the table*
Janet Hardy
spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Tangentially related, there is an old concept I've run into now
> and then that a man should be "good with dogs" if he's
> to make a good husband (or perhaps, lover). I think this says
> something of the huge importance of domestic animal species to
> human culture -- one's relationship to dogs (and to a lesser
> extent, cats) has long been a sort of social litmus test.
The first time the Squeeze came over to my place, Miss Amy greeted him
like her long-lost lover. It definitely impressed me (an impression
which proved accurate).
Janet
--
BACK AT LAST! "21st Century Kinkycrafts" - the classic text on building
your own sex and BDSM toys, updated with new ideas and new projects.
Available from your favorite retailer, on-line bookseller or direct from
http://www.greenerypress.com.
DonSideB
You go to some pretty lame banquets.
DonSideB
The difference between death and taxes is that death
doesn't get worse every time the Congress convenes. (Will Rogers)
Violet Tigress
Tell that to the people who put out the jello
Asmodeus
C0648F.124...@news.isp.giganews.com:
> Tell that to the people who put out the jello
Vile stuff, jello.
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || Oderint Dum Metuant
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || VRWC Proud Life Member
/ \ AND POSTINGS || http://www.rightwingnation.com
Morag R
<spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
> Tangentially related, there is an old concept I've run into now
> and then that a man should be "good with dogs" if he's
> to make a good husband (or perhaps, lover). I think this says
> something of the huge importance of domestic animal species to
> human culture -- one's relationship to dogs (and to a lesser
> extent, cats) has long been a sort of social litmus test.
I suspect it's more that the dog will read body language on the
potential husband that will speak to the potential husband's overall
calmness or twitchiness about life.
That is, it's less about what we think of dogs, than it is about
testing how we are going to be treated. This is why I disagree with
Frites, although I haven't gotten to that post yet.
Dogs absolutely adored my maternal grandfather, every neighborhood dog
knew where his house was and they would always insist on stopping to
say hi when he was working in his front garden.
As a terribly anxious kid, I hoped to inherit this St Francis like
magic dog whisperer trait, and of course, because I was a nail biting,
nervous kid who couldn't sit still and couldn't look anyone or anything
in the eye, I didn't.
It's only now I realise it wasn't magic, it was because my grandfather
never spoke an unnecessary word, and certainly never had to raise his
voice. He was quiet but confident, extremely calm, unflapabble,
reliable and dependable - and that played out in his body language and
how he related to dogs.
As it happens, my grandmother chose him over the man she really loved
who was a more mercurial guy, and a drinker, because she thought gramps
would be better husband material. I'm not sure if it made for a happy
marriage or a great romance, but gramps was certainly very good husband
material in the traditional sense [1].
MoragR
[1] Held down a job his entire working life, never drank, never beat
her or the kids, had a respectable hobby umpiring cricket, etc
Lusus Naturae
Over there? Oh yes, I see it. Thanks a bunch. Looks
delicious. I'll just go help myself then, shall I?
[Limps toward the serving section (ancient knees and ankles do
not *like* to vault)]
Be back in a wink. Anyone else fancy a little, while I'm going?
--
Lusus Naturae
Ruth Lawrence
"Janet Hardy" <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:verdie-EBFAA2....@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <dhp55l$5vt$1...@blue.rahul.net>,
> spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>> Tangentially related, there is an old concept I've run into now
>> and then that a man should be "good with dogs" if he's
>> to make a good husband (or perhaps, lover). I think this says
>> something of the huge importance of domestic animal species to
>> human culture -- one's relationship to dogs (and to a lesser
>> extent, cats) has long been a sort of social litmus test.
>
> The first time the Squeeze came over to my place, Miss Amy greeted him
> like her long-lost lover. It definitely impressed me (an impression
> which proved accurate).
I've had someone decide they wanted to Play with me because
I carried their kitty about, even though I explained I'm trained
in that!
Well, she did purr.
Ruth. trained cat fancy person
NightMist
<bondcATrightwingnationDOTcom> wrote:
>Violet Tigress <kis...@inreach.com> wrote in news:kismit-
>C0648F.124...@news.isp.giganews.com:
>
>> Tell that to the people who put out the jello
>
>Vile stuff, jello.
>
There are worse things.
Having been to some potlucks where some people seem to have had a hard
time mastering glorified rice or watergate salad makes you look kind
of fondly at jello.
NightMist
--
"To repeat what others have said, requires education; to challenge
it, requires brains." -Mary Pettibone Poole
Asmodeus
news:4340e58d...@news.madbbs.com:
> Having been to some potlucks where some people seem to have had a
> hard time mastering glorified rice or watergate salad makes you
> look kind of fondly at jello
Watergate salad? Do I want to know what that is?
Kristal
Aqui...@gmail.com says...
> My question is this:
>
> Who's right here? And am I overreacting about the whole "Oh, I like
> animals but I don't want to take care of one, I'll just rent one if I
> want to spend time with an animal" thing? Or is it really symtomatic of
> a way of thinking that I think might be dangerous to me?
Both of you are right as far as I can tell. There is no one set of
rules for having a bdsm relationship. If you don't like someone or don't
want a relationship with them and don't regret the decsion then that is
it you have made the right decision. On the other hand although I know
little about the other person in question he may have had enough
experience that he knows what he is doing is the only thing that works
for him.
Kristal
Steve Pope
><spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>> Tangentially related, there is an old concept I've run into now
>> and then that a man should be "good with dogs" if he's
>> to make a good husband (or perhaps, lover). I think this says
>> something of the huge importance of domestic animal species to
>> human culture -- one's relationship to dogs (and to a lesser
>> extent, cats) has long been a sort of social litmus test.
>I suspect it's more that the dog will read body language on the
>potential husband that will speak to the potential husband's overall
>calmness or twitchiness about life.
This still assigns a massive importance to dog/human relationships.
>That is, it's less about what we think of dogs, than it is about
>testing how we are going to be treated.
And this has to do with dogs exactly how?
I still say it's cultural assimilation of the companion species.
Steve
NightMist
<bondcATrightwingnationDOTcom> wrote:
>night...@gmail.com (NightMist) wrote in
>news:4340e58d...@news.madbbs.com:
>
>> Having been to some potlucks where some people seem to have had a
>> hard time mastering glorified rice or watergate salad makes you
>> look kind of fondly at jello
>
>Watergate salad? Do I want to know what that is?
>
It's the green stuff made with the instant pistachio pudding and the
pineapple.
Nena and Al
>My remark about narrow mindedness is based on my observation that to
>claim a dislike of an entire species potentially speaks to one of three
>things:
If one is an animal person, it makes perfect sense to seek out other
animal people and that a person's attitudes about animals would be of
particular interest, but I just don't see a link between dislike for a
particular kind of animal/pet and intellectual laziness, character
flaws, or cultivating hatred and negativity. I haven't noticed that a
love for animals is linked to intellectual curiosity, sterling
character, or open mindedness and a positive outlook. Both the animal
lovers and animal dislikers seem to have an equal share of jerks and
ignorami.
>NB, this is not about simply not being interested. This is about
>active dislike, especially those who seem to take pride in their
>dislike.
Would you feel similarly if they were taking pride in their active
dislike of things other than animals?
There are lots of folks out there who like to sneer. That's a flag
for me no matter what it is they're sneering at. There's a lot of
sneering that goes on in this newsgroup. If I had a nickle for every
time I've read a sneerful comment about vanilla folk, I'd have a heck
of a lot of nickles. When I think about the ssbb folks I'd like to
meet and those I wouldn't care to meet, sneering is definitely a
factor.
>>If the implication is that someone who doesn't
>> like cats or dogs or what have you might be similarly judgemental
>> about diverse kinds of people, I think that's a stretch.
>
>That's not a link I'm making, the judgement by itself is enough to put
>me off- whether about dogs, food, people, kids, Australian art, or
>anything else that is sufficiently broad and deep to take a lifetime to
>study and understand. It's about an approach to life and intellect,
>rather than an indicator for their attitude to humans.
There are an endless number of things that people can be interested in
that are sufficiently broad and deep that they will take a lifetime or
more to study and understand. I have to make choices about where I'm
going to spend my time and energy. I'll bet you do, too. I'm
guessing that some of the things that are really important or
fascinating to me are things that you would have no interest in
learning much about, but I don't think that this says anything about
your intellect or your approach to life.
>One question, if you've met a few dogs you like, why would you say you
>dislike dogs instead of just leaving it blank? Maybe someone out there
>who you want to meet has one of those dogs you will end up liking.
Given a choice between like, dislike, and leaving it blank, dislike
most closely reflects my feelings about dogs. There's really nothing
about them that I find appealing. I don't want to live with a dog,
even a great dog, nor do I want a dog along on outings. "No Dogs" is
one of my partner selection criteria. I may miss out on some
wonderful people that way, but I figure the boy and his dog deserve
someone who can appreciate them both and that's not me.
I have other selection criteria, too, many of which are likely to mean
that I'm going to be taking a pass on some excellent people. It also
means that the people I do hook up with have a better than average
chance of working out for me. Folks who don't meet my criteria aren't
flawed, they're just folks who don't meet my criteria. They're folks
who'll be happier with someone other than me.
Nena
Chaos Glitter
"Nena and Al" <m...@madamegiggles.com> wrote in message
news:eumvj15n3jrcgjgj0...@4ax.com...
<cuts>
> I have other selection criteria, too, many of which are likely to mean
> that I'm going to be taking a pass on some excellent people. It also
> means that the people I do hook up with have a better than average
> chance of working out for me. Folks who don't meet my criteria aren't
> flawed, they're just folks who don't meet my criteria. They're folks
> who'll be happier with someone other than me.
>
> Nena
Everyone has "selection criteria", so I think. I have quite a lot of them
myself though its taken many years to find out what they were. It makes for
better chances at the people we allow to be close to actually work out in
the long run. I have one of "must not be obsessed with sex", and I
certainly could associate with someone for whom sex is the one thing always
on their mind (I have before), but in the long run, its incompatible with
how I function and eventually leads to some pretty serious conflicts. So,
choosing to weed out those who you know to be incompatible from the start
saves a lot of time and effort, not to mention potential heartbreak.
I have always thought that someone who actively acknowledges their selection
criteria were people not only possibly intelligent, but also quite aware of
themselves and that`s always a good thing, in my mind. Course, there`s
those who will bitch about it being closed-minded, and say we`re cutting out
a lot of good people doing things like this. But for me, do I really want
to be partnered with someone who`s sex drive is quadruple mine? no. Do you
really want to have to deal with a dog every time you go see your new
partner? I doubt it. We all have this desire to be happy (I hope!) and
making ourselves miserable over not being "judgemental" about who we
associate with is just silly and makes no sense. Its not like someone
should be insulted or feel rejected just cause they aren`t compatible with
*everyone*
`kay
who personally doesn`t dislike dogs, but doesn`t get along with anything
bigger than lap-size, since those dogs always manage to knock me down saying
hello...
Morag R
<spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
> Morag R <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> ><spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>
> >> Tangentially related, there is an old concept I've run into now
> >> and then that a man should be "good with dogs" if he's
> >> to make a good husband (or perhaps, lover). I think this says
> >> something of the huge importance of domestic animal species to
> >> human culture -- one's relationship to dogs (and to a lesser
> >> extent, cats) has long been a sort of social litmus test.
>
> >I suspect it's more that the dog will read body language on the
> >potential husband that will speak to the potential husband's overall
> >calmness or twitchiness about life.
>
> This still assigns a massive importance to dog/human relationships.
Not necessarily. Customer/waiter relationships aren't terribly
important to me, but they're a good test of a future partner.
I'm not saying dog/human relationships aren't culturally important, but
I don't think that has direct relevance to what is being discussed
here, in fact I think it muddies the waters.
> >That is, it's less about what we think of dogs, than it is about
> >testing how we are going to be treated.
>
> And this has to do with dogs exactly how?
I don't understand what you are asking here.
MoragR
Steve Pope
><spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>> This still assigns a massive importance to dog/human relationships.
>
>Not necessarily. Customer/waiter relationships aren't terribly
>important to me, but they're a good test of a future partner.
>I'm not saying dog/human relationships aren't culturally important, but
>I don't think that has direct relevance to what is being discussed
>here, in fact I think it muddies the waters.
>> >That is, it's less about what we think of dogs, than it is about
>> >testing how we are going to be treated.
>>
>> And this has to do with dogs exactly how?
>I don't understand what you are asking here.
My point was along the lines that being "good with dogs" somehow
ended up with what seems to me a disproportionate significance,
and that this is a cultural effect. "Good with waiters" or
"good with people in general" would seem to me more relevant than
"good with dogs".
Steve
Spyral Fox
Pope) wrote:
>My point was along the lines that being "good with dogs" somehow
>ended up with what seems to me a disproportionate significance,
>and that this is a cultural effect. "Good with waiters" or
>"good with people in general" would seem to me more relevant than
>"good with dogs".
Speaking for myself, the question was not whether they were *good*
with dogs, but how they *feel* about dogs or cats or whatever. Of
course, the discussion has (as they always do) gone off in a few other
directions.
Obviously, anyone who isn't very fond of critters is not a good match
for me, and that affects my thinking on the question of how they would
describe their attitude about pets.
To me, as I mentioned earlier, it really would be a red flag if
someone didn't want a pet simply because it's boring taking care of
the litter box or walking the dog on a daily basis. I think it was
Patty (and I am sorry if I misrecall) who said that this is probably
not entirely fair to all potential doms, since they are simply not
getting the same sorts of pleasure out of having a cat/dog/whatever
around as someone like myself would. I admit she has a point -- if
the sub isn't a pet person, it's likely less important. However, for
the style of owner I seek, I think it would matter because so much of
the stuff that I enjoy has ritualistic overtones, and might bore the
same sort of person who thinks emptying the cat box is too much work.
Maybe not -- it's only a small red flag for me if they don't want pets
themselves.
I do agree that how they treat *people* is something to watch closely,
but IME the same people who would kick an animal are not typically
very considerate towards humans, while the majority of the people who
are "good with dogs" have traits which also make them good with
humans. Obviously, it's not universal; I know a few people who are
great with animals and who think of humans as second-class citizens,
or who are recist or classist or just generally unpleasant.
Nevertheless, people who are able to move quietly and gently around
animals, and command their respect (not their fear) and play with them
on their own terms are showing a trait that I do seek in a
relationship.
--
Spyral Fox (spyra...@cox.net)
[formerly spyr...@aol.com]
I promise to do something about my own website eventually.
Stephen Harris is very kindly mirroring the cookbook (errors & all) at http://bdsm.spuddy.org/ssbbcooks/
LadyGold
wrote:
>Nevertheless, people who are able to move quietly and gently around
>animals, and command their respect (not their fear) and play with them
>on their own terms are showing a trait that I do seek in a
>relationship.
I knew it!! We are destined for each other!!
Herr Doktor Spectrum??? You must finish that serum! We've even
procured the web pages...
The Foole Cuff video is located in a subdirectory. Unfortunately it
is strictly on a need to know basis. But if you asked our fearless
leader he'd probably share it with you.
LadyGold, High Sheriff of Nettingham, OCF and PBB
Lumber Cartel Unit 2514 (tinlc)
aka Taipan's dorei
--
"Just because I don't CARE doesn't mean I don't understand."
... my cat.
Asmodeus
@news.madbbs.com:
> It's the green stuff made with the instant pistachio pudding and the
> pineapple.
Okay, story time. My mother made this nastiness called Martian
Salad. Lime jello, mini-marshmallows, cool whip, you get the
idea. Well, everybody hated it, including my mother, but she
always made it on holidays, and always asked why nobody was
eating it. It's like she had a mental block on the fact that
everybody--even her--despised it.
Steve Pope
>On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:58:22 +0000 (UTC), spo...@speedymail.org (Steve
>Pope) wrote:
>>My point was along the lines that being "good with dogs" somehow
>>ended up with what seems to me a disproportionate significance,
>>and that this is a cultural effect. "Good with waiters" or
>>"good with people in general" would seem to me more relevant than
>>"good with dogs".
>Speaking for myself, the question was not whether they were *good*
>with dogs, but how they *feel* about dogs or cats or whatever. Of
>course, the discussion has (as they always do) gone off in a few other
>directions.
Yes, I started the "good with dogs" tangent. "Okay with animals"
was the topic before I tangented.
>Obviously, anyone who isn't very fond of critters is not a good match
>for me, and that affects my thinking on the question of how they would
>describe their attitude about pets.
>To me, as I mentioned earlier, it really would be a red flag if
>someone didn't want a pet simply because it's boring taking care of
>the litter box or walking the dog on a daily basis. I think it was
>Patty (and I am sorry if I misrecall) who said that this is probably
>not entirely fair to all potential doms, since they are simply not
>getting the same sorts of pleasure out of having a cat/dog/whatever
>around as someone like myself would. I admit she has a point -- if
>the sub isn't a pet person, it's likely less important. However, for
>the style of owner I seek, I think it would matter because so much of
>the stuff that I enjoy has ritualistic overtones, and might bore the
>same sort of person who thinks emptying the cat box is too much work.
Certainly seems reasonable to me.
Steve
Spyral Fox
<ladygold.r...@planetarydefense.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 20:37:50 -0700, Spyral Fox <spyra...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Nevertheless, people who are able to move quietly and gently around
>>animals, and command their respect (not their fear) and play with them
>>on their own terms are showing a trait that I do seek in a
>>relationship.
>
>I knew it!! We are destined for each other!!
"A" trait, I said. There are a few additional specifications. :-)
>Herr Doktor Spectrum??? You must finish that serum!
Yep, else I'll remain heterosexual for the rest of my life
> We've even
>procured the web pages...
>
>www.fooleco.com
>
>The Foole Cuff video is located in a subdirectory. Unfortunately it
>is strictly on a need to know basis. But if you asked our fearless
>leader he'd probably share it with you.
It's a *video*?? I must remember to ask!
Nena and Al
Eckhart) wrote:
> Well, for one in a d/s relationship there should be an agreed upon
>power dynamic and authority. That is quite different from a normal
>relationship where hopefully you are both equals (and fight for power and
>authority).
That "fight for power and authority" stuff makes "normal" sound pretty
darned horrendous. One of the things that my Al and I like best about
our d/s relationship is that we never struggle over power and
authority. If there's a disagreement about something, it's understood
that Al can share his opinion but I always decide how it's going to
be.
Amongst kinky folk, there seems to be a belief that equal is an easier
relationship dynamic than power echange. I don't think that's true.
From what I've seen, folks with egalitarian relationships put just as
much effort into making their relationships work as does anyone else.
The folks who are successful at it are those who communicate with each
other and are willing to put their personal stuff aside for the good
of the relationship. That's true no matter what the power dynamics
are.
Equal is a power dynamic that needs to be talked about and agreed
upon, just like d/s. I've seen equal relationships that were very
rocky because the parties had different ideas about what "equal"
means. Lots of folks split up over division of funds or housework.
That's easy for us - I get the money, Al does the housework.
I don't think that the majority of relationships are egalitarian.
Power exchange relationships are common in the vanilla world, they're
just not labeled that. I know a number of happy couples where one is
obviously the senior partner and the other the junior. I don't know
many couples that are completely egalitarian, although there seem to
be more of them among the younger folk.
I don't understand the suggestion that folks must step back from the
d/s power dynamic to talk about problems. I guess that the idea is
that dom and sub are roles overlaying an otherwise "normal"
relationship, and that in some way those roles get in the way of
communication. I suppose that could be the case for some folks, but I
don't think it's typical of d/s relationships.
Nena
Lusus Naturae
>The Foole Cuff video is located in a subdirectory. Unfortunately it
>is strictly on a need to know basis. But if you asked our fearless
>leader he'd probably share it with you.
I don't know whether I need to know, and I really need to know.
Where do I need to go to find out whether I need to know? Where
do I need to go to find out where I need to go?
--
Lusus Naturae
Vorticity Kappa
Someone will brief you if you need to know. If you haven't been briefed,
you don't need to know.
It's considered impolite to continue a line of conversation that has
caused your interlocutor to be struck dumb, neither confirming, denying,
or responding in any way to your speculations. But it's wicked fun.
--
VK
Lusus Naturae
>Lusus Naturae wrote:
>> I don't know whether I need to know, and I really need to know.
>> Where do I need to go to find out whether I need to know? Where
>> do I need to go to find out where I need to go?
>>
>
>Someone will brief you if you need to know. If you haven't been briefed,
>you don't need to know.
I was born brief and I never expanded much. At first I was
diapered, but eventually I was briefed. Does that mean I need
to know?
>It's considered impolite to continue a line of conversation that has
>caused your interlocutor to be struck dumb, neither confirming, denying,
>or responding in any way to your speculations.
I get it. You mean you don't know whether I need to know, and
you need to go.
--
Lusus Naturae
Chaos Glitter
> I don't understand the suggestion that folks must step back from the
> d/s power dynamic to talk about problems. I guess that the idea is
> that dom and sub are roles overlaying an otherwise "normal"
> relationship, and that in some way those roles get in the way of
> communication. I suppose that could be the case for some folks, but I
> don't think it's typical of d/s relationships.
>
> Nena
When there were things to discuss that touched on the relationship dynamics,
we usually set aside the "D/s" aspect in that I was free to say whatever I
wanted or needed to say and nothing I said was punishable no matter whether
he`d told me not to say certain things or not. It was "stepping back" in
that I took a far more active role in such discussions than I normally do,
and it was about *me* I was talking, not pleasing him. That was essential
to good open communications, and since I do have a hard time focusing on how
I`m doing and what`s been good and bad for me, this sort of "stepping back"
from my usual role of serving him helped me express myself. But stopping
the D/s relationship to talk about it, actually NOT being pet or whatever
wouldn`t have been possible because in our case the foundation of the
relationship was D/s in nature, beyond just the friendship he and I have.
I`d guess that people who`s relationship started out completely free of D/s
elements and who actually worked at involving D/s into the relationship in a
very deliberate, conscious manner would be more able to turn off the D/s for
discussion. I`ve no idea whether this is common or not, I`ve never known
anyone off-the-newsgroup who had a D/s relationship aside from me and him.
`kay
T. Eckhart
>
>When there were things to discuss that touched on the relationship dynamics,
>we usually set aside the "D/s" aspect in that I was free to say whatever I
>wanted or needed to say and nothing I said was punishable no matter whether
>he`d told me not to say certain things or not. It was "stepping back" in
I just wanted to comment on this idea of punishing the slave or
the submissive.
I've seen it a lot.
Maybe Fox and I just really click but I haven't punished him in
three or more years of our six year owner-slave relationship. He learned
what I expected and wanted, he does his best all the time, there really
isn't anything to punish.
Or we really unusual this way?
--
--
Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips, & Chains,
TammyJo Eckhart (teck...@kiva.net)
Author, Activist, Educator
SilverOz
T. Eckhart <teck...@mayhem.kiva.net> wrote:
> Maybe Fox and I just really click but I haven't punished him in
> three or more years of our six year owner-slave relationship. He learned
> what I expected and wanted, he does his best all the time, there really
> isn't anything to punish.
>
> Or we really unusual this way?
I dunno..
I suspect that some people use it as a way to bolster the feelings. To
feel "controlled", to feel "controlling".
Some get those feelings in other ways, or aren't after them in the first
place.
On the other hand, I don't know of any long term D&S relationship where
the sub gets punished for honest feelings or for saying "this isn't
working". Unless, I suppose, the sub is being manipulative or otherwise
not trying to honestly help the relationship, and I suspect such a pair
would have problems whether they stepped back or not.
SilverOz
--
========================================================================
Control, Dominance, Submission: Thoughts and controversies
http://www.peter-masters.com
====
Australian BDSM Information http://www.ozabis.info/
========================================================================
Stephen Harris
> Maybe Fox and I just really click but I haven't punished him in
> three or more years of our six year owner-slave relationship. He learned
> what I expected and wanted, he does his best all the time, there really
> isn't anything to punish.
> Or we really unusual this way?
Tori has punished me once (I broke a rule; can't even remember what it was
about now... may have been masturbating when I was under orders not to) in
the 4 years I've been her slave.
She has playfully punished me (eg pulled my hair and spanked me) many
times... but that's just play :-)
--
rgds, Stephen "Pleasure, little treasure"
An Englishman in New York, and loving slave to his Mistress, Tori.
BDSM thoughts, writings, poems and stuff: http://bdsm.spuddy.org/
Newsgroup charter, FAQs etc at http://bdsm.spuddy.org/newsgroups/
Judi
Eckhart) wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:51:19 -0700, Chaos Glitter wrote:
>>
>>When there were things to discuss that touched on the relationship dynamics,
>>we usually set aside the "D/s" aspect in that I was free to say whatever I
>>wanted or needed to say and nothing I said was punishable no matter whether
>>he`d told me not to say certain things or not. It was "stepping back" in
>
> I just wanted to comment on this idea of punishing the slave or
>the submissive.
>
> I've seen it a lot.
>
> Maybe Fox and I just really click but I haven't punished him in
>three or more years of our six year owner-slave relationship. He learned
>what I expected and wanted, he does his best all the time, there really
>isn't anything to punish.
>
> Or we really unusual this way?
No. We tried this dynamic ourselves and very quickly learned that it
didn't work for us at all. The rare times I spoke to G of punishment,
he became overwrought, the thought that he was displeased me wounding
him so deeply that no "lesson" could have been learned, IMO. It was
painful to watch and, I'm sure, even more painful for him to suffer
through. I dropped the tactic almost immediately. The moral I took
away from that was that some subs respond to it, others don't.
Since we'd had the basis of a long-term marriage of equals (we'd been
married 17 years before we introduced d/s in our daily lives), we
continued with the problem-solving tactics that had proven themselves
effective over the years. There has never been a time, even during
play, when G hasn't been allowed, and even encouraged, to speak his
mind. Many years ago, in my very early days of practicing my skills as
a dominant, it was frowned upon in the general community to allow your
sub to do this. Thank god we mature as we age, eh? One of the things I
quickly learned is that a d/s relationship without open communication
doesn't work for me- and now, would quickly destroy my marriage.
Now, that doesn't mean that using punishment as a play scenario
wouldn't be out of the question for us, though we'd never really toyed
with that (I think mostly because of the terrible associations it has
for both of us based on what I talked about above), but for us, a far
more effective method is a simple, gentle scolding. That gets my point
across without doing him emotional damage, and G learns well from it.
-----------------------------------
Judi & Sub
http://www.livejournal.com/users/msjudi/ (QAF M/M slash fiction)
SSBB Dip. Corp., Houston, TX.
"I like the sight of your tears just as much as your smile."
Andy Shepard
> No. We tried this dynamic ourselves and very quickly learned that it
> didn't work for us at all. The rare times I spoke to G of punishment,
> he became overwrought, the thought that he was displeased me wounding
> him so deeply that no "lesson" could have been learned, IMO. It was
> painful to watch and, I'm sure, even more painful for him to suffer
> through. I dropped the tactic almost immediately. The moral I took
> away from that was that some subs respond to it, others don't.
I get very upset and emotional if I believe I've displeased Mistress,
but I usually know when I have whether or not she says or does anything,
and being punished helps me get over that. When we first started
experimenting with d/s, about six months ago, I committed some petty
offense, and she let me off with just a light scolding, and told me she
forgave me, but I couldn't get over feeling guilty that I had failed
her, and ended up spending about the next four hours lying in her arms
and crying. We almost gave up d/s after that disaster, but in the end
we talked about it, figured out what the problem was, and kept going,
much more successfully. We had a similar incident about a week ago;
she took me home and spanked me soundly, then told me she forgave me and
that was that. I felt pretty bad about it and sobbed a bit before and
during the punishment, but in the end it was enough to help me feel
like I'd paid for my failure and get through it with relatively little
emotional pain and drama.
--
Andy Shepard |
andy+...@andyshepard.org |
http://www.andyshepard.org/ | http://www.livejournal.com/users/vox_soli/
T. Eckhart
>I get very upset and emotional if I believe I've displeased Mistress,
>but I usually know when I have whether or not she says or does anything,
>and being punished helps me get over that. When we first started
>experimenting with d/s, about six months ago, I committed some petty
>offense, and she let me off with just a light scolding, and told me she
>forgave me, but I couldn't get over feeling guilty that I had failed
>her, and ended up spending about the next four hours lying in her arms
>and crying. We almost gave up d/s after that disaster, but in the end
>we talked about it, figured out what the problem was, and kept going,
>much more successfully. We had a similar incident about a week ago;
>she took me home and spanked me soundly, then told me she forgave me and
>that was that. I felt pretty bad about it and sobbed a bit before and
>during the punishment, but in the end it was enough to help me feel
>like I'd paid for my failure and get through it with relatively little
>emotional pain and drama.
I think for some people, especiallly early in a Ds relationship a
punishment can relieve some guilt.
Over time though it seems (based on my experience) that you get to know
the owner well enough to not need punishment because the rule, rituals,
what have you become second nature.
If Fox were to break a rule of mind I'd want to know why but at this
point, after six years, I'd consider ita call for attention or a serious
issue that needs dealing with and punishment, in my opinion, won't solve
those sort of problems.
Chaos Glitter
"T. Eckhart" <teck...@mayhem.kiva.net> wrote in message
news:slrndkbiic....@mayhem.kiva.net...
> I just wanted to comment on this idea of punishing the slave or
> the submissive.
>
> I've seen it a lot.
>
> Maybe Fox and I just really click but I haven't punished him in
> three or more years of our six year owner-slave relationship. He learned
> what I expected and wanted, he does his best all the time, there really
> isn't anything to punish.
>
> Or we really unusual this way?
I doubt unusual, since its far more likely I`m the unusual one in this case
:) There`s been few times he`s actually severely punished me (as opposed to
a "you messed up, here`s how to fix it" type), and those times were all me
being stupid over the same stupid thing, though the times I revert to being
stupid like that are getting further apart. His punishment works :) The I
guess lighter punishments are entirely for me, keeps me from being cruel to
myself when I know I screwed up. His punishments are much much healthier
for me, and much much more fair to me than I ever could have been.
Considering how I end up hating myself when I make mistakes and he actually
still does love me no matter how bad I screw up, I`d rather he be the one to
decide when and how I get punished.
When we take steps back to talk about the relationship, I think its more
because I`m *afraid* of being punished, and I`m not confident enough to know
what to do or how to act that will please him (nevermind that he`s often
said just as I am pleases him... ) He`s never punished for saying how I`m
doing or how things are going or for voicing an opinion. However, the first
dom I ever knew was the type to punish for even the "bad thoughts" that he
thought I might be thinking, and I`m still not straightened out about that.
So I suspect that that`s why, because its hard for me to be able to discuss
things rationally when I am expected to be honest about how things are,
unless he specificallly sets time aside and says everything is ok.
`kay
hoping that makes some sort of sense... I`ve never sat down and thought much
about any of this.
Chaos Glitter
"Andy Shepard" <andy+...@andyshepard.org> wrote in message
news:slrndkdj4o.a2...@charon.andyshepard.org...
> I get very upset and emotional if I believe I've displeased Mistress,
> but I usually know when I have whether or not she says or does anything,
> and being punished helps me get over that. When we first started
> experimenting with d/s, about six months ago, I committed some petty
> offense, and she let me off with just a light scolding, and told me she
> forgave me, but I couldn't get over feeling guilty that I had failed
> her, and ended up spending about the next four hours lying in her arms
> and crying. We almost gave up d/s after that disaster, but in the end
> we talked about it, figured out what the problem was, and kept going,
> much more successfully. We had a similar incident about a week ago;
> she took me home and spanked me soundly, then told me she forgave me and
> that was that. I felt pretty bad about it and sobbed a bit before and
> during the punishment, but in the end it was enough to help me feel
> like I'd paid for my failure and get through it with relatively little
> emotional pain and drama.
That`s probably very similar to why he punishes me too, to stop the guilt.
I do awful things to myself when I get to feeling guilty and bad enough...
Punishment brings a closure, and a way to attone for the wrong-doing,
doesn`t it... I cry and feel awful during punishments, but afterwards he
cuddles and hugs and kisses and shows he still loves me in a million
different ways, and that`s my proof that I`m forgiven and everything is
alright again. Kind of like me acting bad unbalances something, and what he
does brings everything back in balance.
I do hope TammyJo Eckhart`s right in that the need for such types of
punishment won`t stay forever. It would be awful to be say, 10 years into
the D/s relationship and still not be able to accept a spoken forgiveness
and let it go at that.
`kay
Technobarbarian
>>
>>When there were things to discuss that touched on the relationship
>>dynamics,
>>we usually set aside the "D/s" aspect in that I was free to say whatever I
>>wanted or needed to say and nothing I said was punishable no matter
>>whether
>>he`d told me not to say certain things or not. It was "stepping back" in
>
> I just wanted to comment on this idea of punishing the slave or
> the submissive.
>
> I've seen it a lot.
>
> Maybe Fox and I just really click but I haven't punished him in
> three or more years of our six year owner-slave relationship. He learned
> what I expected and wanted, he does his best all the time, there really
> isn't anything to punish.
>
> Or we really unusual this way?
I doubt it. We're at 3+ years without any punishment ever. The whole
crime and punishment model doesn't seem to fit us. When I have a problem
with her all I have to do is talk about it. There is no form of punishment
that would get better results. I don't even scold. It isn't necessary and it
wouldn't improve the situation. For us, in general, punishment could create
problems and it isn't likely to solve any.
With the possible exception of doing a scene I'm not into speech
control either. Communication is invaluable. I find myself working to insure
clear lines of communication instead of working to close them off. If you
get a bunch of stuff backed up with no outlet the results aren't likely to
be pretty.
TB
Andy Shepard
> That`s probably very similar to why he punishes me too, to stop the guilt.
> I do awful things to myself when I get to feeling guilty and bad enough...
> Punishment brings a closure, and a way to attone for the wrong-doing,
> doesn`t it... I cry and feel awful during punishments, but afterwards he
> cuddles and hugs and kisses and shows he still loves me in a million
> different ways, and that`s my proof that I`m forgiven and everything is
> alright again. Kind of like me acting bad unbalances something, and what he
> does brings everything back in balance.
That's it exactly.
> I do hope TammyJo Eckhart`s right in that the need for such types of
> punishment won`t stay forever. It would be awful to be say, 10 years into
> the D/s relationship and still not be able to accept a spoken forgiveness
> and let it go at that.
I figure that, before I met Mistress, I spent almost 21 years getting
more and more fucked up in the head. I've gotten better since, but
slowly, and I expect it to take just as long to get un-fucked up and
be able to handle these things a bit more reasonably.
John Warren
> I think for some people, especiallly early in a Ds relationship a
> punishment can relieve some guilt.
>
> Over time though it seems (based on my experience) that you get to know
> the owner well enough to not need punishment because the rule, rituals,
> what have you become second nature.
I draw a parallel to my military experience. Recruits are punished
physically because they aren't yet part of the group in their own mind.
However, I'd never have consider punishing any member of my recon team.
Simply telling him "you screwed up" or "you let down the team" would be more
than sufficient to correct any temporary failings.
I want submissives around me who want to please me. It would be as silly to
punish one of them for a failure than it would for me to tell one of my team
to "drop and give me 50."
Nena and Al
Eckhart) wrote:
> Maybe Fox and I just really click but I haven't punished him in
>three or more years of our six year owner-slave relationship. He learned
>what I expected and wanted, he does his best all the time, there really
>isn't anything to punish.
>
> Or we really unusual this way?
Al doesn't really get punished any more. The only thing he got
punished for more than a couple times was not having my coffee ready
for me in the morning. I've developed nasty reactions to caffeine so
that's become moot.
I've never been much for punishment. I figure if a guy wants to obey,
he will. If he doesn't want to obey, I don't want him. Al needed
some punishment in our early days. It was more absolution than
punishment, really. He could forgive himself and move on. That
worked for me because I deal with things as they occur, then I'm over
it. I'd hate to have him fretting about something after I'd forgotten
all about it.
Nena
Morag R
<m...@madamegiggles.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 18:57:01 +1000, Morag R <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >My remark about narrow mindedness is based on my observation that to
> >claim a dislike of an entire species potentially speaks to one of three
> >things:
>
> If one is an animal person, it makes perfect sense to seek out other
> animal people and that a person's attitudes about animals would be of
> particular interest, but I just don't see a link between dislike for a
> particular kind of animal/pet and intellectual laziness, character
> flaws, or cultivating hatred and negativity. I haven't noticed that a
> love for animals is linked to intellectual curiosity, sterling
> character, or open mindedness and a positive outlook. Both the animal
> lovers and animal dislikers seem to have an equal share of jerks and
> ignorami.
Sure, however, I did not suggest the things you are suggesting here.
I'll be the first to agree that there are some really damaged units out
there calling themselves animal lovers for example. It does not follow
that if disliking something is a red flag, liking that same thing must
indicate there are no other red flags.
I'm not sure it's worth restating this over and over - but in short, I
personally have a number of things I'm not particularly attracted to in
a partner. An ultra fem woman who has a house full of squashed-nose
cats doesn't appeal as a partner prospect for example. But I don't
_dislike_ squashed-nose cats, or ultra fem women, and I can filter for
my preferences without being negative about it.
> Would you feel similarly if they were taking pride in their active
> dislike of things other than animals?
Yes, absolutely. That's why I said this at the end of my last post:
"the judgement by itself is enough to put
me off- whether about dogs, food, people, kids, Australian art, or
anything else..."
> There are lots of folks out there who like to sneer. That's a flag
> for me no matter what it is they're sneering at. There's a lot of
> sneering that goes on in this newsgroup. If I had a nickle for every
> time I've read a sneerful comment about vanilla folk, I'd have a heck
> of a lot of nickles. When I think about the ssbb folks I'd like to
> meet and those I wouldn't care to meet, sneering is definitely a
> factor.
Yes, me too.
> There are an endless number of things that people can be interested in
> that are sufficiently broad and deep that they will take a lifetime or
> more to study and understand. I have to make choices about where I'm
> going to spend my time and energy. I'll bet you do, too.
Yes. Exactly. The point I am trying to make is that knowing that I
don't have 10 lifetimes to become an expert Renaissance woman, I
therefore don't assume I have a reasonable basis to dislike an entire
class of things that I have only a passing acquaintance with.
> Given a choice between like, dislike, and leaving it blank, dislike
> most closely reflects my feelings about dogs. There's really nothing
> about them that I find appealing. I don't want to live with a dog,
> even a great dog, nor do I want a dog along on outings. "No Dogs" is
> one of my partner selection criteria. I may miss out on some
> wonderful people that way, but I figure the boy and his dog deserve
> someone who can appreciate them both and that's not me.
I filter all the time. I do appreciate this point.
I guess looking back to my own experience tho', animals didn't really
come up when my LTR and I were first getting together because we were
renting. Then once we were well down the road in our relationship she
mentioned that she once kept Afghan Hounds in the 80's, and would like
to again.
I was a confirmed cat person, didn't get on well with dogs, was
reknowned for my stiff cursory pats of friends' dogs, my irritation
with their behaviour etc etc. And of all the dogs to choose, an
Afghan just seemed the most impractical crazy OTT option of all.
For various reasons tho' I figured it was important to her, and she was
important to me, and we'd give it a shot. And now I'm well on the way
to being a crazy dog lady myself. I'm not suggesting that path is one
everyone should take. I am suggesting that if I'd filtered hard at
that point in my life based on what I'd learned about dogs from
friends' Border Collies and Labradors I'd have missed out on a lot.
> I have other selection criteria, too, many of which are likely to mean
> that I'm going to be taking a pass on some excellent people. It also
> means that the people I do hook up with have a better than average
> chance of working out for me. Folks who don't meet my criteria aren't
> flawed, they're just folks who don't meet my criteria. They're folks
> who'll be happier with someone other than me.
I don't have any argument with this :)
Janet Miles
<slrndjuahh....@mayhem.kiva.net>, T. Eckhart wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 18:30:31 GMT, Nena and Al <m...@madamegiggles.com> wrote:
> >On 30 Sep 2005 12:51:56 -0700, "rft777" <rft...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >You're talking about normal relationships and d/s relationships as if
> >they are different things. How do they differ?
>
> Well, for one in a d/s relationship there should be an agreed upon
> power dynamic and authority. That is quite different from a normal
> relationship where hopefully you are both equals (and fight for power and
> authority).
Um? I don't *think* that Dale and I fight for power and authority; we each
have areas where we're expert and the other defers to us, but in general we
work out disagreements without "fighting".
Perhaps I have misunderstood?
JanetM
--
Posted by Janet Miles <janet...@chartertn.net>
Sometimes it's a good idea to revere the sacred crazy
from a safe distance. -- Arthur D. Hlavaty
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
LadyGold
The Official FooleCo directions on "How to know if you need to know"
are available from the headquarters in Montserrat.
They are, like most other FooleCo items, totally FREE!!!!. Shipping
and handling are a mere $999.88 (small, unmarked, non sequentially
numbered bills, please). You can also request delivery from the
Department of Two Mean LeatherDykes named Vito (aka Vito^2). But if I
were you, I wouldn't.
The addition of a few pounds of chocolate (Belgian, dark) may insure
speedier delivery or it may cause the entire request to get hijacked.
You pays yer chocolate and takes yer choice.
LadyGold, High Sheriff of Nettingham, OCF and PBB
Lumber Cartel Unit 2514 (tinlc)
aka Taipan's dorei
--
It's purple. It's mine.
Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by LadyGold
Lusus Naturae
>The Official FooleCo directions on "How to know if you need to know"
>are available from the headquarters in Montserrat.
>
>They are, like most other FooleCo items, totally FREE!!!!. Shipping
>and handling are a mere $999.88 (small, unmarked, non sequentially
>numbered bills, please). You can also request delivery from the
>Department of Two Mean LeatherDykes named Vito (aka Vito^2). But if I
>were you, I wouldn't.
It appears that before I order "How to Know if You Need to Know"
from FooleCo there might be one or two things I need to know.
--
Lusus Naturae
Spyral Fox
<ladygold.r...@planetarydefense.org> wrote:
>The addition of a few pounds of chocolate (Belgian, dark) may insure
>speedier delivery or it may cause the entire request to get hijacked.
>You pays yer chocolate and takes yer choice.
Gosh, one leaves town for a few days, and other people forget
you exist.
Please notice that there as a *courier* service which will guarantee
delivery of any chocolate-containing payments to FooleCo in a
timely manner. The chocolate will arrive in tip-top condition,
without any visible cocoa-butter surface bloom.
Of course, said courier service does cost a small additional fee;
but you need not search for any more small-denomination used
USA currency; the fee may be paid in kind. Think of it as
danegeld for a fox in the henhouse.
Sir Gardener
news:m8k5l1l2q1j92r7bl...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:06:31 -0500, LadyGold
>
--
Sir Gardener
Loving Master and Husband of gentle^spirit[SG]
Webmaster, http://www.christiansandbdsm.com
--
"People know when they're being used and when they're being cherished."
Fred Rogers (1929-2003)
Spyral Fox
<sir_ga...@christiansandbdsm.com> wrote:
>"Spyral Fox" <spyra...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:m8k5l1l2q1j92r7bl...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:06:31 -0500, LadyGold
>>Think of it as danegeld for a fox in the henhouse.
>>
>Didn't you mean a "Spyral" fox in the henhouse?
Further deponent sayeth not, on account of how we can't
advertise commercial services here. ;-)