What ARE Subs/Slaves/Pets exactly?

Here I was ready to open up a bottle of scotch and bring some lawn chairs to watch the fireworks here and someone starts a deviants thread

Uhhmmm...You're still going to open that bottle, though?

/me pours a glass for Brenda.

O.o deviant thread - I am so there

You call it imbalance and for your lifestyle it might be. But for a good Domme/sub relation (SL or RL) their relation is all about balance.

And no, I am not a Domme or a sub... I am just me .

There are many lifestyles I don't understand, but that doesn't make them less reality for those who believe in such a lifestyle....


Morwen.

LOL

Ridgebacks are a dog breed

Morwen.

You are Dutch, so you are open minded to other lifestyles by nature. It is in your genes

Anyway, every relation is based on balance: without balance the relationship will eventually fail.

The only difference between conventional and D/s relationships, is that the balance works a bit different. Feelings tend to go just a bit deeper too, that is what I see in my relationship, and with friends as well.

Well okay, not the only difference. We hit our girlfriends. Whip, flog, and that's just the beginning. And they like it. Again balance

Then some Dutch folks, as a Geert Wilders or a Rita Verdonck must have a disease that removes that gen .

Morwen.

Weird though, because that Wilders dude clearly is the result of a human and a furry yiffin

Not criticising you in particular Morwen, just picking out a phrase for emphasis. I actually like the way you say "I'm just me".

I always find it odd when people put Domme or sub (or even slave) right in the front of their profile. I'm very submissive, sexually and in some ways, socially, but I'd hate to have it define me that strongly. I prefer 'submissive' to be used as an adjective than a noun. As well as submissive I could add lazy, intelligent, disorganised, imaginative, funny, melancholy, pedantic, shy... even tall, unemployed, barefoot (and probably 'off-topic'!). They all describe me, but they aren't me.

...any openings for future gf's?


'Makes me a player then, I enjoy a nice bit of spanky at the right moment


This is of course a very old concept- in fact, many would say it is hard-wired in our genes. Goreans take a lot of flack for basically espousing the same theory- the dominance of males over females. I know Gor has a very dim view over all in SL, but if you step out of SL and see it as a lifestyle, you will see it is essentially the same thing, with a collar tossed in- call it jewelery if you will

It is all what it is under different labels and some practices more extreme than others- if it makes all concerned happy- why question it?

See next answer.

Regarding your first question, with me you would have one problem: I am the one determining the right moment.

My favourite subject of discussion, when at a bar things fall a bit quiet, is the natural dominance of men over women Success guaranteed. And of course it is nonsense. Not all men are dominant over women, only the alpha males. But that is for part two of that bar discussion.

And this is a problem why? By asking, would I not be tacitly agreeing to those terms?



True- but therein lies the rub. Not all men will draw the concurrent response from all women- like calls to like, I would say, thus the point is moot.

Well in general, players do agree with eachother when they want to play, that's why I warned you

Paul was a misogynist of the first rank. I think that after God made him stop persecuting Christians, he had to have SOME outlet for his meanness, and chose women to beat on instead.

Even as a woman who appreciates a nice take charge, alpha male type of man, I have some issues with the way this is phrased. It seems to imply that all women are potentially submissive to the alpha males of this world, and I just don't believe that to be true. Some women are submissive; some will submit to one lover in their lives and never to another; others will take either a submissive or dominant role, as the relationship demands; still others will laugh at - or perhaps cause bodily harm to - any man who suggests submission to them, no matter how 'alpha' he may be. A man may be able to physically dominate a woman a good portion of the time, just based on the disparity in upper body strength, but that doesn't mean she's ever going to submit to him.

I'll agree with Ann
I like a take-charge sort of fellow but only because I am bored and irritated by the weenie ones. Me likes a challenge but that doesn't mean I cowtow to some cro-magnon who thinks men are in charge by virture of owning a penis.

Secretly (well overtly) I suspect that those who come here with visions of whips and leather straps are the sort of fellow that is badly p----whipped in RL and needs to work out his misogynistic impulses on other guys (also) pretending to be female.
And then justify their fetishes with a lot of homespun psychology.

oops, did I say that out loud??

The Cat Has Spoken!

Well said, Ann!

Yes you did, now get back to the kitchen!

Only joking, please don't kill me.

Well, there's a lot of truth to that. ... but it's SL, so there's nothing wrong with it either. There's some amount of either type here. People will use the grid to get what they need on social and psychological levels, whether they are true doms or simply looking to fulfill an inner need on some level.

There are plenty of dom women in the world, and men who serve them; doubtless both types can be found in SL, and taking reversed roles to boot. It's all good.

Do you see now how well these kind of remarks work to get a conversation in a bar going again

I honestly think this just proves the point of different strokes for different folks-

I can't agree with this broad generalization. Not that I have to- and that's the beauty of it.

Haha, my interest runs a little deeper than that, I'm just not a fan of generalizations...implied or otherwise. I'm a little old-fashioned and do prefer that the man be 'in charge,' but I know not all women feel that way. I just think relationships do better with a leader and a follower - so to speak - and, in my case, I'm uncomfortable and ultimately unhappy in the leadership role.

Now, see, I go all different. I like women who speak their minds and kick ass on their own terms. The mousey types are cute and all ... but it gets tired fast. The ones who need a partner more than a leader are more my style.

Not what I meant...I'm perfectly capable of speaking my mind and kicking ass. I don't want all of my choices made for me and I do expect to get my way at times, but sometimes there are decisions which need to be made in a relationship and, if no compromise can be reached, someone has to take charge or risk losing what they've built. Even in those situations, I would expect to be heard and have my opinions considered carefully, but the decision would ultimately be his. Of course, if all he made were self-serving choices, I don't believe I'd hang around long...I'd need to know that he was doing what he thought was best for US.