(no subject)
new tag: fetrant.
I use this because I can compile all this shit later and use it for personal book writing someday. These are things already said on fet, most likely, or just written rambling.
reading these entires means you're prepared to see me rant and ramble like I used to (oh god nooooooooo)
feel free to comment
ONWARD:
"I identify as a Master, not a Dom. This is because my need is to be in control, not necessarily dominating."
Well you have a problem then.
dominate:
1. To control, govern, or rule by superior authority or power
2. To exert a supreme, guiding influence on or over
3. To enjoy a commanding, controlling position in
I use the terms Doms and subs liberally in some people's eyes.
For me it is literally the dominant and submissive partner(s). I do this because if I separated terms into master/handler/trainer/mommy or daddy/bully/alpha/whathaveyou and slave/owned/pet/girl or boy/brat or victim/beta/whathaveyou, I'd be here all day.
I don't use top/bottom because of the fact that you can sexually top (be the fucker) and top in kink (be the spanker for example) and not be the Dominant partner. You could very well be doing these topping acitivities as a service. This is also why I keep 'top' lowercase unless it's for a person that requests otherwise.
"I also make this distinction because my fantasy is not to have women being submissive to me or to be dominating women, my fantasy is more specific I want slaves."
That's not specific, buddy. Define 'slaves' and please be specific in your needs. Because if want a non-submissive slave then what exactly are you looking for? A dominant domestic helper? I can't think of any of those, personally, but let me suggest to you possible a battle-ax type woman or maybe a stereotypical Spanish housewife. They'll run you and your home just fine, and you won't find a scrap of submission there.
"Do you think one can be a Master and not a Dom? Vice versa?"
It depends on the person. I can think a Master can choose to not identify as simply a dominant person, and a Dominant person can choose to not identify as a Master. Kink is too broad and expansive for people in kink to have set deffinitions for something that is so different for every person and relationship. The word can give you the general idea, but short of saftey and common sense, the one correct example of a relationship can not and does not exist. Far too many have amazing, flourishing results that are vastly different from each other.
Anyone that tells you otherwise is either being far too serious about their role or unable to see how it works for others.
"And what would be the difference in their roll in a 24/7 relationship?"
That's like asking what's the difference between masters. There are too many answers here.
I suggest someone does out and starts attending munches and getting into the scene. And starting to read as many books as you can get your hands on.
"Submissives may have many "limits," or not so many limits; when they have no limits, they are called slaves."
I call bullshit. Not trying to derail this thread (and mind you, I own and have read that book quite a few times), but no human being on the planet has no limits. That would mean you're a blackhole bottom and went into negotation the 'You can do anything to me' line, which means good fucking luck getting anyone to play with you.
If a slave has no limits, then they won't mind me either murdering them or (and actually this next idea bothers me more, sadly) demanding a vanilla relationship and sex maybe once a year, also totally vanilla.
I'd like to see how long a slave with no limits stays for either of those.
Lacking limits leads to abuse, miscommunication, and damaged relationships/people. It's irresponcible and living in an unsafe fanatasy.
Once again, not trying to detrail a thread, but that shit irks me to no end.
these are both too snarky and I need to work on that :\
I use this because I can compile all this shit later and use it for personal book writing someday. These are things already said on fet, most likely, or just written rambling.
reading these entires means you're prepared to see me rant and ramble like I used to (oh god nooooooooo)
feel free to comment
ONWARD:
"I identify as a Master, not a Dom. This is because my need is to be in control, not necessarily dominating."
Well you have a problem then.
dominate:
1. To control, govern, or rule by superior authority or power
2. To exert a supreme, guiding influence on or over
3. To enjoy a commanding, controlling position in
I use the terms Doms and subs liberally in some people's eyes.
For me it is literally the dominant and submissive partner(s). I do this because if I separated terms into master/handler/trainer/mommy or daddy/bully/alpha/whathaveyou and slave/owned/pet/girl or boy/brat or victim/beta/whathaveyou, I'd be here all day.
I don't use top/bottom because of the fact that you can sexually top (be the fucker) and top in kink (be the spanker for example) and not be the Dominant partner. You could very well be doing these topping acitivities as a service. This is also why I keep 'top' lowercase unless it's for a person that requests otherwise.
"I also make this distinction because my fantasy is not to have women being submissive to me or to be dominating women, my fantasy is more specific I want slaves."
That's not specific, buddy. Define 'slaves' and please be specific in your needs. Because if want a non-submissive slave then what exactly are you looking for? A dominant domestic helper? I can't think of any of those, personally, but let me suggest to you possible a battle-ax type woman or maybe a stereotypical Spanish housewife. They'll run you and your home just fine, and you won't find a scrap of submission there.
"Do you think one can be a Master and not a Dom? Vice versa?"
It depends on the person. I can think a Master can choose to not identify as simply a dominant person, and a Dominant person can choose to not identify as a Master. Kink is too broad and expansive for people in kink to have set deffinitions for something that is so different for every person and relationship. The word can give you the general idea, but short of saftey and common sense, the one correct example of a relationship can not and does not exist. Far too many have amazing, flourishing results that are vastly different from each other.
Anyone that tells you otherwise is either being far too serious about their role or unable to see how it works for others.
"And what would be the difference in their roll in a 24/7 relationship?"
That's like asking what's the difference between masters. There are too many answers here.
I suggest someone does out and starts attending munches and getting into the scene. And starting to read as many books as you can get your hands on.
"Submissives may have many "limits," or not so many limits; when they have no limits, they are called slaves."
I call bullshit. Not trying to derail this thread (and mind you, I own and have read that book quite a few times), but no human being on the planet has no limits. That would mean you're a blackhole bottom and went into negotation the 'You can do anything to me' line, which means good fucking luck getting anyone to play with you.
If a slave has no limits, then they won't mind me either murdering them or (and actually this next idea bothers me more, sadly) demanding a vanilla relationship and sex maybe once a year, also totally vanilla.
I'd like to see how long a slave with no limits stays for either of those.
Lacking limits leads to abuse, miscommunication, and damaged relationships/people. It's irresponcible and living in an unsafe fanatasy.
Once again, not trying to detrail a thread, but that shit irks me to no end.
these are both too snarky and I need to work on that :\