NationStates Jolt Archive

Really? Semantic twattery is certainly not unsual on NSG, but I really don't think it works here guys. Just listen to what she's really saying, instead of dissecting her words...and please remember she's not a native English speaker.

Gracias, Sinuhue.

I have become what, a fucking case study? Parkus, stop it. Your neo-psychology bullshit makes me nauseous. Gravlen, although I know you're sorry for analyzing my words, stop it, please. The rest of you, if you have nothing of value to post, stay the hell away

As I told Smunkee, those outside of this, those who do not understand or those who claim to understand what was behind my words, are of no consequence to me or how I feel about my Keeper.

So, let me make sure I get this straight. On a thread dedicated to understanding and discussing d/s relationships, you get irritated with people who respond to you, when you bring up yours?

One would think that if you don't want your relationship discussed, you wouldn't bring it up in a thread dedicated to discussing those relationships. This thread is about people who don't really understand d/s relationships, trying to understand them. And when you bring up yours in that context, people will use it as an example, to try and understand them. You don't want your relationship discussed by people who want to understand d/s relationships? Then why would you bring it up in a thread where people are coming to try and understand d/s relationships?

I mean, sure, you have a right to your privacy, you have a right to not have you relationship, as you described it, discussed and debated, but when you bring it up in a thread specifically designed for that purpose....what the hell did you expect?

I doubt that. The way I see it (Sorry for analysing you Nanatsu!) she would do anything he asked within a set, unspoken boundry. As she says, he'll never want to maim her. If the day ever should come that he does want that, it'll be a whole new ballgame, and she'll have to re-evaluate what her position was. She might come to accept it then, I don't know.

But I still say that now, today, there is a limit. A limit that might be pushed or expanded (or even narrowed) down the road, but a limit that they both understand nonetheless.

'course, that's just how I see it :p

I think I already explained that I would do anything for my Keeper because he would never ask me to harm others or harm myself. If I used too much flourishes in my words and I got the information across wrongly, for that I am sorry. However, that doesn't mean that I am crazy or that he is crazy. That doesn't mean the way I feel about him or the things I am willing to do (and lets use "within the set limits", if it makes the posse happy:rolleyes:) for him are wrong. Ultimately, the ones who matter here are the master and the slave. I think Neo Art said as much, even Poli. Certainly Neesika has done so several times.

I did not, I repeat, I did not come into this thread to seek understanding from NSG. I was honestly posting to the OP.

So, let me make sure I get this straight. On a thread dedicated to understanding and discussing d/s relationships, you get irritated with people who respond to you, when you bring up yours?

One would think that if you don't want your relationship discussed, you wouldn't bring it up in a thread dedicated to discussing those relationships. This thread is about people who don't really understand d/s relationships, trying to understand them. And when you bring up yours in that context, people will use it as an example, to try and understand them. You don't want your relationship discussed by people who want to understand d/s relationships? Then why would you bring it up in a thread where people are coming to try and understand d/s relationships?

I mean, sure, you have a right to your privacy, you have a right to not have you relationship, as you described it, discussed and debated, but when you bring it up in a thread specifically designed for that purpose....what the hell did you expect?

Read the post above yours and simmer down, NA.

As I see it, it all comes down to trust. Nan feels comfortable doing whatever her Keeper says because she trusts him not to harm her, or order her to do anything harmful.

It's not THAT much different from "vanilla" relationships. When I toss my GF my car keys and say she can drive my car wherever she wants, I don't want her to drive to Mexico with her ex in my car. Luckily, I'm confident that she wouldn't. :p

The tough part for me is deciding where the line falls between a relationship and sadistic abuse. It just seems like it's going over the line when actual harm is part of the relationship; not harm within the context of mutual trust and respect, but when one partner is doing harmful things and the other is so completely submissive that there's no real telling whether or not the relationship is actually equal or if the person is simply being abused under the pretext of a legitimate relationship. It's not really different from any other relationship when it comes down to the potential for abuse and the unfortunate reality for some partners to do nothing about their victimization.

At least that's my take. Since I don't find anything inherently off or wrong with these kinds of relationships, my concern lies only in stopping abuse, both of the people involved and the legitimacy of a particular style of relationship between two people.

Anything he asks her to do, even if it hurts her, she will comply. Even if she doesn't want to, it appears that she has no will of her own, she does everything for him that he asks.


At first I was like, yeah, groovy, free love, etc... But now I'm thinking, that kind of seems like merely exploiting your lovers infatuation.

As I see it, it all comes down to trust. Nan feels comfortable doing whatever her Keeper says because she trusts him not to harm her, or order her to do anything harmful.

It's not THAT much different from "vanilla" relationships. When I toss my GF my car keys and say she can drive my car wherever she wants, I don't want her to drive to Mexico with her ex in my car. Luckily, I'm confident that she wouldn't. :p

well of course, these kind of relationships require a tremendous amount of trust to them. Certainly no less than "vanilla" relationships, and conceivably quite a lot more. Especially in some situations, takes a lot of trust in someone to let him/her bind you in a way you quite literally CAN NOT escape from unless and until he/she lets you out.

But it doesn't mean all common sense goes out the window. My partner is a submissive. She will do more or less what I tell her to, more or less without question.

But that's only because the two of us have developed enough trust where she knows I wouldn't tell her to do something that is beyond her limits. We also have enough trust in each other that if I DO do that, she simply says "no" and that's the end of it.

Despite conception, "no" is not a forbidden word in d/s relationships. It's just one that probably doesn't get used as often, if ever (and if never used only because the partners know each other well enough to not encroach on territory in which it would)

The tough part for me is deciding where the line falls between a relationship and sadistic abuse. It just seems like it's going over the line when actual harm is part of the relationship; not harm within the context of mutual trust and respect, but when one partner is doing harmful things and the other is so completely submissive that there's no real telling whether or not the relationship is actually equal or if the person is simply being abused under the pretext of a legitimate relationship. It's not really different from any other relationship when it comes down to the potential for abuse and the unfortunate reality for some partners to do nothing about their victimization.

At least that's my take. Since I don't find anything inherently off or wrong with these kinds of relationships, my concern lies only in stopping abuse, both of the people involved and the legitimacy of a particular style of relationship between two people.

Yes, of course, but that's true in ANY relationship. Abuse is abuse, and it's tolerated no more in d/s relationships and communities than it is in "vanilla" ones.

The line is clear. That which she (or he) submits to, under her own free will, absent force, threat or coercion, made intelligently and with full understanding of the risks, is not abuse.

If she doesn't, it is.

Yes, of course, but that's true in ANY relationship. Abuse is abuse, and it's tolerated no more in d/s relationships and communities than it is in "vanilla" ones.

The line is clear. That which she (or he) submits to, under her own free will, absent force, threat or coercion, made intelligently and with full understanding of the risks, is not abuse.

If she doesn't, it is.

That's my take on it as well.

At first I was like, yeah, groovy, free love, etc... But now I'm thinking, that kind of seems like merely exploiting your lovers infatuation.

Only if you actually, y'know, exploit it. I mean, is my boyfriend "exploiting" me when he gets me to kiss him, considering, you know, I like him and like kissing him? One would presume you'd agree that he is not. So how would he really be exploiting me by getting me to do whatever he tells me to, considering I like doing whatever he tells me to? I can always say no. I just choose to say yes.

That's my take on it as well.

Now, there are certain activities that do become murky. Poli said that if a partner willingly consents to being shot, it's not abuse. On some level, yes, I agree with that. But keep in mind my criteria. Consent must be given freely, intelligently, with a rational mind, free of force, threat, or coercion. I question whether one can consent to being shot, in that context, with a intelligent and rational mind, free of force, threat, or coercion.

In other words, IF those factors are met, it's not abusive. But for some activities, I question whether they ever REALLY can be. And the law in many instances recognizes that. The more severe forms of sadism...maiming, breaking bones, true violence, is illegal, regardless of consent, because the law states that no sane, rational person COULD consent to that.

And on some level I agree. I don't think any "consent" to get shot as part of your relationship is real consent.

I have become what, a fucking case study? Parkus, stop it.

I was under the impression that when you post about your personal life on a topic concerning relationships, you would expect responses to your post. But not only do you not want us to respond to you, but you also tell us not to speak with each other about your posts.

Your neo-psychology bullshit makes me nauseous.

I have been subjected to the same level scrutiny by my fellow NS'ers, but if it really offends you I will quit. I was just talking with others; it is not as if I was demanding you answer my questions.

As I see it, it all comes down to trust. Nan feels comfortable doing whatever her Keeper says because she trusts him not to harm her, or order her to do anything harmful.

Pretty much this.

Only if you actually, y'know, exploit it. I mean, is my boyfriend "exploiting" me when he gets me to kiss him, considering, you know, I like him and like kissing him? One would presume you'd agree that he is not. So how would he really be exploiting me by getting me to do whatever he tells me to, considering I like doing whatever he tells me to? I can always say no. I just choose to say yes.

I think you hit on one of the issues people have when discussing their relationships. Because they could never imagine enjoying being a submissive, they can't conceptualize OTHER people enjoying it. And I don't blame them for that, I do think however it's important to keep an open mind about the subject. I think "kinky" people tend to have more open mind towards others fetishes, and more able to say "well I don't like it, but more power to you if you all agree to it" because we're off the "mainstream"

Only if you actually, y'know, exploit it. I mean, is my boyfriend "exploiting" me when he gets me to kiss him, considering, you know, I like him and like kissing him? One would presume you'd agree that he is not. So how would he really be exploiting me by getting me to do whatever he tells me to, considering I like doing whatever he tells me to? I can always say no. I just choose to say yes.

I got from that quote I originally quoted that the master was even getting the slave to do something she doesn't like (a reasonable extrapolation from something that 'hurts' her, and something 'she doesn't want to do').

Now, there are certain activities that do become murky. Poli said that if a partner willingly consents to being shot, it's not abuse. On some level, yes, I agree with that. But keep in mind my criteria. Consent must be given freely, intelligently, with a rational mind, free of force, threat, or coercion. I question whether one can consent to being shot, in that context, with a intelligent and rational mind, free of force, threat, or coercion.

In other words, IF those factors are met, it's not abusive. But for some activities, I question whether they ever REALLY can be. And the law in many instances recognizes that. The more severe forms of sadism...maiming, breaking bones, true violence, is illegal, regardless of consent, because the law states that no sane, rational person COULD consent to that.

And on some level I agree. I don't think any "consent" to get shot as part of your relationship is real consent.

In fairness, I did also say that the person being shot would have to be capable of consenting to that. ;)

But, yeah, areas like that, it does really get murky. There are people who do some things to themselves that I consider batshit insane, and it's hard for me to figure out exactly where the line is between "stuff that is too hardcore for me, but sure, do it if you like" and "stuff that you really can't consent to."

I got from that quote I originally quoted that the master was even getting the slave to do something she doesn't like (a reasonable extrapolation from something that 'hurts' her, and something 'she doesn't want to do').

Ah...yeah, I see why you'd think that. Neesika did a pretty good job earlier in the thread discussing how one can actually want to do things one...doesn't want to do. It sounds counterintuitive and odd, I know, but it's true. I mean, to stick with my small example from earlier about being told to go get my boyfriend a Coke - I may very well have already gotten comfortable and not want to get up. If he were anyone else, I would tell him to get it for himself at that point. But because of the nature of our relationship, I actually like it when he makes me go get him a Coke when it's a bit of a pain in my ass, because the pleasure of knowing he has that authority over me not only exceeds but is actually enhanced by the displeasure at being made to get up.

Does that make any sense?

I got from that quote I originally quoted that the master was even getting the slave to do something she doesn't like (a reasonable extrapolation from something that 'hurts' her, and something 'she doesn't want to do').

That's something that depends on the submissive person in general, but as a general rule, can fit in one of three categories:

1) those that do it because that while that particular act might be troublesome, it's understood that she does so, in that context of a relationship. And if she is happy as a submissive, in general, should she not submit, even in instances where she's not necessarily HAPPY to do so, runs the risk that her partner, who wants a submissive partner, won't be interested any more. In short, does it to "keep the harmony of the relationship"

2) those that while they may not be happy doing that thing, feel a happiness in submission that outweighs it

3) those whose happiness is actually enhanced by doing things they don't necessarily want to. Because they enjoy submitting, the submission is more meaningful when it's things they don't want to do. A feeling of being greater controlled, when they like to be controlled. If you ENJOY being controlled, then that control manifests itself more when you're told to do things you don't necessarily want to

That's something that depends on the submissive person in general, but as a general rule, can fit in one of three categories:

1) those that do it because that while that particular act might be troublesome, it's understood that she does so, in that context of a relationship. And if she is happy as a submissive, in general, should she not submit, even in instances where she's not necessarily HAPPY to do so, runs the risk that her partner, who wants a submissive partner, won't be interested any more. In short, does it to "keep the harmony of the relationship"

2) those that while they may not be happy doing that thing, feel a happiness in submission that outweighs it

3) those whose happiness is actually enhanced by doing things they don't necessarily want to. Because they enjoy submitting, the submission is more meaningful when it's things they don't want to do. A feeling of being greater controlled, when they like to be controlled. If you ENJOY being controlled, then that control manifests itself more when you're told to do things you don't necessarily want to
Definitely #3 for me. Even better when it's well known that I don't enjoy doing a thing, or it discomforts me, and I have to do it anyway. It's easy to obey when it's something you were already going to do, or enjoy doing. It's a hell of a lot harder to do something that you take no pleasure in (for itself) or actually hurts. And because of who I am, I like to fight, I like to struggle, I like to get angry...for whatever reason that all makes me feel alive and turns me on, and when I can experience that within the safety of a loving relationship, it's allows me to vent those feelings safely without hurting myself or anyone else.

I was REALLY REALLY hoping this thread would be all about sex. I guess I have to run back to GM disappointed.

I was REALLY REALLY hoping this thread would be all about sex. I

Well don't just stand there on the sidelines. Get us started!

Well don't just stand there on the sidelines. Get us started!
Lazy like always. Why don't you take up the mantle instead?

Lazy like always. Why don't you take up the mantle instead?

no no, NSG knows enough about me in that regard.

I was REALLY REALLY hoping this thread would be all about sex. I guess I have to run back to GM disappointed.

Kinky sex: fun, or really really fun? Discuss!

There ya go. :tongue:

All this talk about domination and submission, and still it's not clear who dominates in this thread. That's a bit funny, actually.

Kinky sex: fun, or really really fun? Discuss!

There ya go. :tongue:
Leave it to Poli :P

Definitely fun. I don't know how I lived without my handcuffs before. I don't understand why anybody would not like kinky stuff. Blows my mind.

Leave it to Poli :P

Definitely fun. I don't know how I lived without my handcuffs before. I don't understand why anybody would not like kinky stuff. Blows my mind.
If everyone was into it, it would be mainstream and boring. Missionary with the lights off and the socks on would be the new kink.

If everyone was into it, it would be mainstream and boring. Missionary with the lights off and the socks on would be the new kink.
Oh, that's naughty.

Leave it to Poli :P

Definitely fun. I don't know how I lived without my handcuffs before. I don't understand why anybody would not like kinky stuff. Blows my mind.

as I said in another thread, the important question is, who wears them :p

If everyone was into it, it would be mainstream and boring. Missionary with the lights off and the socks on would be the new kink.

Yeah, I don't want certain things to go mainstream. A big part of what I enjoy about certain sexual acts is how wrong they are. He's getting turned on by making me cry and even more turned on by me trying to fight him off? I'm a feminist, he's a feminist, that's just so bad!

If it were totally normal, it might not turn me on as much.

D/s is a fetish, much like many other sexual styles. It's not a fetish I have. I can't even begin to understand the appeal. It's just totally alien to all my impulses and thoughts. The more I read about D/s, the more I think I might, mentally and emotionally, be the exact opposite of a D/s personality. Sometimes I feel like I'm reading messages from another planet when I read these threads. It's kind of fascinating, but I wish I could imagine it.

D/s is a fetish, much like many other sexual styles. It's not a fetish I have. I can't even begin to understand the appeal. It's just totally alien to all my impulses and thoughts. The more I read about D/s, the more I think I might, mentally and emotionally, be the exact opposite of a D/s personality. Sometimes I feel like I'm reading messages from another planet when I read these threads. It's kind of fascinating, but I wish I could imagine it.

What would the exact opposite of a D/s personality be? Sounds interesting.

I haven't read all the thread yet, so if I'm redundant I apologize, but:
<snip>
Sex is not suppose to be a contact sport. <snip>
^^ You are doing it wrong. ^^

sometimes i feel like i'm reading messages from another planet when i read these threads.

Take me to your beater!

I suppose we're a little confused as to what the point of your hatred is. I find scatplay pretty darn gross and am not at all interested in participating in it, but I don't feel the need to tell people who are into scat that their sexual preferences are sick and disturbing. I figure as long as they're not asking me to play with their poop, I can wish them well and hope they enjoy their own poop-playing. It is, therefore, a bit puzzling to me when someone gets worked up about how terrible D/s is, or how terrible gay sex is, or how terrible buttsex is, because, in the end, no one is making you do it, so why the heck do you care if other people are enjoying it?

I don't understand it myself, my reaction to scat play is "eww that's gross", my reaction too dom slave is the same reaction I have to real slavery. It doesn't mean I'm going to stop anyone from doing it but I will not have any of it, at all, ever.


It's very telling that you equate consensual sexual relationships with diseases. That's a rather disturbing outlook you have there. Perhaps you should seek help for it.

Stop being obtuse; you are smarter than this Neo; at least you seem smarter maybe I shouldn't make even good assumptions about people. I was comparing it to things that have a similar effect on me: AKA give me discomfort but there is little or nothing I will do about them but take proactive steps to keep them away from me.



Continue to point it out? I will, thanks. But the thing is, at the end of the day, I will continue to have the relationships I want to have, and you will continue to wallow in ignorance. If the relationships I have offend your sensibilities...well...that's really not my problem.

Oh yeah its a sign of ignorance that I have a negative reaction to people being treated like pieces of meat, right on. You can go ahead and call someone you 'care' about a bitch and slap her around all you want but you have no room to call me ignorant. If your going to make an argument for my ignorance have an actual reason; I myself have already admitted its not rational but its me, and its my reaction; for someone who claims to respect people's right to whatever you are demonstrating a rather closed viewpoint.

I haven't read all the thread yet, so if I'm redundant I apologize, but:

^^ You are doing it wrong. ^^

I was wondering about that myself. Maybe TB is actually a super-psychic and can have sex via telekinesis? :p

Leather, riding crops, ball gags, sensory deprivation. None of these are okay unless you are riding a horse.You're doing other things wrong besides sex, I see:

> I have a green coat made of leather. I wear it to work. I don't work in a stable. Is that wrong of me?

> Riding crops are good for swatting flies.

> Ball gags are good for shutting people up.

> People pay good money to float around in sensory deprivation tanks. They don't ride horses at the same time. Is that wrong of them?

(Also, sensory deprivation is not okay unless you're riding a horse? You want to rethink that one, chief?)

Oh yeah its a sign of ignorance that I have a negative reaction to people being treated like pieces of meat, right on. You can go ahead and call someone you 'care' about a bitch and slap her around all you want but you have no room to call me ignorant.

See, this? This isn't called for, and I don't really see how it's any different from going into the homosexuality thread and saying, "Oh yeah, it's a sign of ignorance that I think wanting to get another guy's poop on your cock is sick and sinful. You can go ahead and claim that you 'care' about your gay boyfriend, but I'm clearly way more moral than you disgusting freaks, so shut up."

(Also, sensory deprivation is not okay unless you're riding a horse? You want to rethink that one, chief?)

Hahahaha. Don't most people ride horses blindfolded? :p

I don't understand it myself, my reaction to scat play is "eww that's gross", my reaction too dom slave is the same reaction I have to real slavery. It doesn't mean I'm going to stop anyone from doing it but I will not have any of it, at all, ever.

Good thing for you, nobody's asking you to then, isn't it?




Stop being obtuse; you are smarter than this Neo; at least you seem smarter maybe I shouldn't make even good assumptions about people. I was comparing it to things that have a similar effect on me: AKA give me discomfort but there is little or nothing I will do about them but take proactive steps to keep them away from me.

See, I am pretty smart. And because I'm pretty smart, I know something. I know diseases, like the flu, cause discomfort, because they have an effect on our body. The symptoms of the flu are a result of a virus attacking our system.

The problem is though, what I do in my relationships, what Poli does in hers, what Neesika does in hers, what we all do in our relationships...that doesn't effect you. It doesn't impact you. It doesn't relate to YOU in any way.

You can't choose how the flu will affect you. You CAN choose how your prejudices affect you.


Oh yeah its a sign of ignorance that I have a negative reaction to people being treated like pieces of meat, right on. You can go ahead and call someone you 'care' about a bitch and slap her around all you want but you have no room to call me ignorant.

Actually, I have a very good reason to call you ignorant. If you weren't, you wouldn't say things like that. That's pretty much the definition of ignorance.

If your going to make an argument for my ignorance have an actual reason; I myself have already admitted its not rational but its me, and its my reaction; for someone who claims to respect people's right to whatever you are demonstrating a rather closed viewpoint.

Not at all. I absolutely respect your right to be a bigot. But it doesn't make you NOT a bigot.

I probably don't, actually. I won't deny that. But I do know that reading Nanatsu's posts here have me shivering, and here it's 70+ Fahrenheit, and I'm dressed rather warmly. There's just something about the whole thing that unsettles me.
I find what Nanatsu said unsettling as well. I would fear for the safety of someone like her if she is speaking literally. Maybe just because I can't ever imagine myself in her place, I tend to suspect that she is speaking figuratively. I mean, when she says it, she really means it because it expresses the scope of her feelings for her lover, but if he ever showed up with the rusty saw, she would probably not submit to that. I have a hard time believing there are people literally ready to play Helena in "Boxing Helena."

But you know SaintB, I'm sure all the submissives are so very glad you're out there, protecting them from things they like. I have seen the error of my ways, and will never slap my girlfriend again.

It's just a shame for her...given how much she likes it.

Oh yeah its a sign of ignorance that I have a negative reaction to people being treated like pieces of meat, right on. You can go ahead and call someone you 'care' about a bitch and slap her around all you want ...

Fuck that's hot.

See, this? This isn't called for, and I don't really see how it's any different from going into the homosexuality thread and saying, "Oh yeah, it's a sign of ignorance that I think wanting to get another guy's poop on your cock is sick and sinful. You can go ahead and claim that you 'care' about your gay boyfriend, but I'm clearly way more moral than you disgusting freaks, so shut up."

Whats uncalled for is personally insulting me because I have an admittedly irrational reaction to people's lifestyle choices.

Fuck that's hot.

I mean, it does raise an interesting question. What would you call "I have a negative reaction towards people getting what they like, because I can't fathom how they'd like it" anything BUT ignorance?

Whats uncalled for is personally insulting me because I have an admittedly irrational reaction to people's lifestyle choices.

If you admit to being judgmental, it is not an insult for me to call you judgmental.

If you admit to being irrationally prejudiced, it is not an insult to call you a bigot.

And when you direct that irrational, prejudiced judgment towards people who are in happy relationships, telling them that they shouldn't be happy for doing things that make them happy, those people are well within their rights to tell you to shove it up your ass.

What you are doing is no different than a homophobe saying same sex couples makes him uncomfortable, and criticizing those who engage in them. It makes you a bigot.

But, at least you're a bigot that recognizes it. And maybe you can work on fixing your prejudices.

Oh yeah its a sign of ignorance that I have a negative reaction to people being treated like pieces of meat, right on. You can go ahead and call someone you 'care' about a bitch and slap her around all you want but you have no room to call me ignorant. If your going to make an argument for my ignorance have an actual reason; I myself have already admitted its not rational but its me, and its my reaction; for someone who claims to respect people's right to whatever you are demonstrating a rather closed viewpoint.

One has to learn to accept other persons' methods of sexual enjoyment. Though I admit I have trouble understanding why anyone would enjoy being called a "filthy whore" while being beaten. I know some persons raised by abusive parents sometimes develop a desire to be hurt by their intimates, but as Poli pointed-out, it is not a psychological problem unless one enjoys pain all the time. I suppose it's like sex: When one person does it, it is pleasing, when another does it, it is torture.

But you know SaintB, I'm sure all the submissives are so very glad you're out there, protecting them from things they like. I have seen the error of my ways, and will never slap my girlfriend again.

It's just a shame for her...given how much she likes it.

Now that's just flame baiting. I'm not trying to stop anyone from anything or 'save' anyone from things they want to do, all I did was post my personal opinion, and for some reason of all the people who are actual bigots doing things to prevent people from living how they want and/or living at all you target me, and then start making insane comments like this that are designed to cause me to start attacking you. I'm done with this thread; after I report this.
Galloism asked for an opinion and I gave one, I didn't insult anyone else's opinion, I didn't attack anyone in this thread, and I didn't even try to make a big deal about it; but here you are; attacking me, calling me ignorant, and now flame baiting. If you want to be pissy than by all means go ahead and be pissy; but please explain to me what the hell it is I ever did to you; or for that matter anyone here on NS to deserve this kind of treatment.

Whats uncalled for is personally insulting me because I have an admittedly irrational reaction to people's lifestyle choices.

Here's what I find confusing - I checked, and in the homosexuality thread, you said:

This saddens me to think people actually had to debate over this...

and

Its still sad that people can hold on to those kind of stupid ideals. usually because a book said so in my experience.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14665550&postcount=745
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14665608&postcount=747

Therefore, I'm pretty sure that you do understand that someone complaining about how other people's sexual preferences are dirty and icky and wrong sounds pretty condescending and pathetic. You yourself said that attitude is stupid.

So why is it that they deserve to be called out on it and told they're being insulting and unreasonable, and you don't, when you do the same thing?

please explain to me what the hell it is I ever did to you

Among other things, the comment with the word "care" in scare quotes was particularly nasty and ridiculous.

So the psychological thing is about someone who enjoys pain all the time--I see.

Still, I do not think I could ever enjoy pain myself, no matter who is inflicting it. It just hurts...ow.
I don't think s/m is a necessary part of D/s.

I can almost understand s/m a little better than I can understand D/s. Or rather, I can understand masochism. I cannot understand sadism at all. But with masochism, there is a neurological connection between pain and pleasure. For some people the connection is stronger than for others. For me, it depends entirely on the kind of pain. There are only two kinds of pain that give me any pleasure response at all -- the pain of very hot peppers burning the inside of my mouth, and the pain that signals the end of something, like the removal of a very big splinter or the release of my hand from being caught in a car door. The hot foods pain feels good to me. The release from injury pain feels *better* -- not good itself but leading to something good.

All other kinds of pain trigger zero pleasure response for me. Zero. If my lover accidentally crushes me in an awkward movement, that is not pleasurable at all. I just grit my teeth until it goes away -- though in the heat of passion, I usually don't even feel such things. I have woken up with many a bruise I don't remember getting. If my lover were to hit or pinch or bite me, that kind of sharp pain would be just an instant physical turn off. Like hitting the "off" button.

But other people get flooded with endorphins from pain. I really think it's neurological. You either get off on pain or you don't.

I'm talking about physical pain, not people who get off on being humiliated in some way.

One has to learn to accept other persons' methods of sexual enjoyment. Though I admit I have trouble understanding why anyone would enjoy being called a "filthy whore" while being beaten. I know some persons raised by abusive parents sometimes develop a desire to be hurt by their intimates, but as Poli pointed-out, it is not a psychological problem unless one enjoys pain all the time. I suppose it's like sex: When one person does it, it is pleasing, when another does it, it is torture.

Ugh, please don't bring abusive parents into the picture. I had a very nice childhood, thanks.

The verbal humiliation...actually humiliation in general, is not something I thought I'd be into. At all. I tried it, and didn't like it; it was a totaly turn off. But lately, I can't bloody get enough of it. Damn. Sometimes it pushes boundaries and makes me uncomfortable. Being called an animal, or only good for sex, for example. If I were to be called stupid....that was an area I didn't want to delve into at all. Except I think about it or talk about it and work it out, and it's fine.

What makes it particularly special in my mind is that no bloody way could anyone else ever get away with calling me a stupid slut. I would rend their flesh.

But when I know that my SO doesn't actually think of me in that way, not really...that it's as much a mental excercise for him as it is for me, it's ok. No, it's more than okay it's absolutely awesome.

Hahahaha. Don't most people ride horses blindfolded? :p
And ball-gagged, too. I forgot about the ball-gag section down at the tack shop. There's a reason "dressage" (ooh, kinky!) is an Olympic sport. :D

I don't think s/m is a necessary part of D/s.

I completely understand that.

I can almost understand s/m a little better than I can understand D/s. Or rather, I can understand masochism. I cannot understand sadism at all. But with masochism, there is a neurological connection between pain and pleasure. For some people the connection is stronger than for others. For me, it depends entirely on the kind of pain. There are only two kinds of pain that give me any pleasure response at all -- the pain of very hot peppers burning the inside of my mouth, and the pain that signals the end of something, like the removal of a very big splinter or the release of my hand from being caught in a car door. The hot foods pain feels good to me. The release from injury pain feels *better* -- not good itself but leading to something good.

All other kinds of pain trigger zero pleasure response for me. Zero. If my lover accidentally crushes me in an awkward movement, that is not pleasurable at all. I just grit my teeth until it goes away -- though in the heat of passion, I usually don't even feel such things. I have woken up with many a bruise I don't remember getting. If my lover were to hit or pinch or bite me, that kind of sharp pain would be just an instant physical turn off. Like hitting the "off" button.

But other people get flooded with endorphins from pain. I really think it's neurological. You either get off on pain or you don't.

I'm talking about physical pain, not people who get off on being humiliated in some way.

I suppose pain gives one a slight adrenaline rush (like the peppers). Still, I find pain an extremely negative sensation...to each his/her own.

but please explain to me what the hell it is I ever did to you; or for that matter anyone here on NS to deserve this kind of treatment.

Well? Let's see. As Poli very aptly, and very brilliantly pointed out, in times when other posters here have voiced comments almost exactly the same as you have, just for different groups, that homosexuality was "wrong" or "made them sick", you attacked them. You criticized them. You pointed out, rightfully so, that such bigotted and hateful attitudes have no place in our society.

But when it comes to other relationships, not the kind that two gay men might have, but the kind of relationship I might have, not only do you not condemn that kind of attitude, you join in, right along the choir of people saying exactly the same things you otherwise condemn.

Someone so willing to jump in and defend the rights for people to have their own relationships, free from prejudice, or disrespect, feels the equal need to disrespect me, and my relationships.

And all that tells me is this. If you are willing to respect other relationships, condemn those that attack them, but do not extend me the same courtesy, and outright attack my lifestyle choices, and my relationship decision, then you fail to show me a level of respect you extend to others.

And if you so clearly wish to show your disrespect to me, I see absolutely no reason why I should put forth any effort to respect you.

I don't respect bigots. Of any variety. I especially don't respect them when they so heavy handedly imply that I don't care deeply about my girlfriend, because of the fact that I treat her the way she likes to be treated. That alone is worth all the scorn I can muster. How fucking dare you?

Another question: What is particularly pleasing about fervent verbal abuse?

I suppose pain gives one a slight adrenaline rush (like the peppers). Still, I find pain an extremely negative sensation...to each his/her own.

Definitely endorphins. But it's more than that. It actually seems to get me high. I think it's a mix of the physical and the mental. I know this sounds weird...but the only time I feel truly, absolutely relaxed, is right after sex with with GoG, or after a really intense beating. It's like I lose all my tension, completely. It's a pretty awesome feelings.

As for enjoying pain...I enjoy it whether it's mixed with sex or not. It's not necessarily all that uncommon either. When I used to go for bikini waxing, the lady who did it made a comment about how it was obvious I was enjoying it...she said a fair number of her clients did. Then again, it's fucking painful as hell so if you DIDN'T enjoy it, it might be hard to make yourself do it.

Then again, I sort of mentally prepared myself for it. I did the same thing when I got my tattoos.

In sex, I find I can't really get off unless I have pain to help focus me. That's exactly how it feels...I can't really feel the pleasure properly unless there is some pain.

Another question: What is particularly pleasing about fervent verbal abuse?

I don't think it's abuse. I don't let people abuse me.

Another question: What is particularly pleasing about fervent verbal abuse?

It's just dirty talking. The dirty talking I like is still almost exclusively sexual in nature...I'm not going to be okay with someone just calling me names for no reason, or putting me down outside of a sexual context. As Smunk pointed out, what I like isn't abuse. Abuse fucking sucks.

Another question: What is particularly pleasing about fervent verbal abuse?

I honestly don't know. I just know that it really, really is.

Part of it, though, I think, is the idea that, in a way, he's giving me permission to be flawed and human. When he calls me a slut, or a bitch, he's sort of telling me that even though I am sometimes "bad," he cares about me not just in spite of but because of those faults. That's very....freeing, if that makes any sense?

ETA: And Smunk and Sin are right to note that "abuse" really isn't the right term; I don't like "abuse" one bit - but I knew what you meant. :p

I am not sure. I guess I wasn't raised in such a way to take slaves.

Some people are control freaks who like to control everything in their lives. For them the world is a scary place and only by controlling as many variables as possible can the world be even a remotely livable place.

Some people are accountability freaks who feel like no matter what they do it's wrong. For them the world is a scary place where blame and disappointment lurk behind every choice they may be called upon to make. Only by surrendering choices to someone else can live be even remotely livable. In fact, they may like living life "remotely."

When these kinds of people get together it's a beautiful thing. Well, not beautiful. It can actually be kinda gross. But it works for them. But if it lasts long enough for kids to become an issue, you gotta keep them out of it.

I honestly don't know. I just know that it really, really is.

Part of it, though, I think, is the idea that, in a way, he's giving me permission to be flawed and human. When he calls me a slut, or a bitch, he's sort of telling me that even though I am sometimes "bad," he cares about me not just in spite of but because of those faults.

How philosophical. :tongue:

That's very....freeing, if that makes any sense?

I suppose, if he were saying those things in a silly and loving manner. But does this not normally involve speaking in hateful and disgusted tones, rather than forgiving?

In a weird way, the dirty talking makes me feel unashamed. There are still all these taboos and social norms and stereotypes about women who enjoy sex. It's really powerful, and it's very constraining. We aren't supposed to act on certain desires and fantasies because if we do, we're sluts or whores or whatever bad word you want to use. Even in a relationship, it's okay to want certain things with your SO, but not necessarily ok to want other things...and if you DO want those other things, it's wrong, or at least something you shouldn't express.

So when he uses those words, and describes the things he's doing to me and how obvious it is that I'm loving it, or talking about other things he knows I'd want and then comments on my very positive reaction to those suggestions...it's freeing, as Poli said. I can just let go and really enjoy it all, without shame or guilt. He's not saying these things to me angrily, it's more like...in wonder, or enjoyment, or glee, all wrapped up together. Even if he's using a rough voice, even if he's saying it's disgusting that I'm such a whore, or whatever...it's not actually cruel. He's letting me know how much it turns him on that I can't do anything but love what we're doing because it's just that good.

It's got to feel really awesome for him to be able to see just how much he turns me on. I know it turns my crank when I see him enjoying himself that much.

Some people are control freaks who like to control everything in their lives. For them the world is a scary place and only by controlling as many variables as possible can the world be even a remotely livable place.

Some people are accountability freaks who feel like no matter what they do it's wrong. For them the world is a scary place where blame and disappointment lurk behind every choice they may be called upon to make. Only by surrendering choices to someone else can live be even remotely livable. In fact, they may like living life "remotely."

When these kinds of people get together it's a beautiful thing. Well, not beautiful. It can actually be kinda gross. But it works for them. But if it lasts long enough for kids to become an issue, you gotta keep them out of it.

Hmm. Don't see myself or my lover described here. Don't see Poli or Art here either. Weird. It's almost like this doesn't really work.

Hmm. Don't see myself or my lover described here. Don't see Poli or Art here either. Weird. It's almost like this doesn't really work.

Indeed.

The thing is, like NA said earlier - we're basically just normal people. We do normal-people things. We're not bizarre freaks who live in dungeons and can't function in the real world; we're just people. I mean, my boyfriend and I engage in such radical, kinky activities as "cuddling while watching a movie" or "playing a video game together." We just also happen to do other things people find a bit weird, but if somehow an edict came down from on high that we had to act totally vanilla for two weeks, we'd act totally vanilla for two weeks and be just fine. (Obviously, at the end of those two weeks, we'd be counting down the seconds until we got to have hot, filthy, kinky sex again, but we'd be functioning perfectly well. :p )

I mean, my boyfriend and I engage in such radical, kinky activities as "cuddling while watching a movie" or "playing a video game together."

:eek: What barbaric activities! it's people like you who are eroding the morals of our society!:p

:eek: What barbaric activities! it's people like you who are eroding the morals of our society!:p

I miss the good ol' days. :(

http://www.familychronicle.com/images/marriagecustoms02.gif

:eek: What barbaric activities! it's people like you who are eroding the morals of our society!:p

I know, right? Just wait till you find out that we also go out to eat together, or - even worse - cook for each other!

I know, right? Just wait till you find out that we also go out to eat together, or - even worse - cook for each other!

It's funny, I like to cook. I like to cook for my partner. I take pride in preparing nice meals. I LIKE making nice meals, for her. It doesn't really reflect a very "dom" attitude. "you will SIT DOWN BITCH and...enjoy this meal I spent two hours making....please?'

It's funny, I like to cook. I like to cook for my partner. I take pride in preparing nice meals. I LIKE making nice meals, for her. It doesn't really reflect a very "dom" attitude. "you will SIT DOWN BITCH and...enjoy this meal I spent two hours making....please?'

It's right up there with other dominant activities I hear you engage in, like, "Whore, admire these pretty flowers I bought for you, NOW," and "You filthy little slut, do you like the ridiculously sweet birthday present I've been planning for a year? Yeah, you BETTER like it, bitch, because I...put a lot of thought into it."

What would the exact opposite of a D/s personality be? Sounds interesting.
Well, let me see if I can express this. It might turn out to be boring to you. Maybe to me, too. Maybe it will show exactly where I'm not getting the D/s thing.

I get the feeling that D/s requires a lot of intense interpersonal involvement with the partners paying a lot of attention to each other, and the sub prioritizing the dom above everything else -- or at least compartmentalizing their life in such a way that there is "inside the relationship" and "outside the relationship" and on the inside, nothing matters more than the dom partner. And the attention has to be demonstrated via a dominant/submissive interpersonal behavior pattern.

I'm not that kind of person. I can't do that.

When I take a lover, that man is integrated into my whole life. He is as much a part of it as my family, my work, my self. And he is on the same level as those things. Neither superior nor inferior to them.

My emotional involvement with a lover is profound and constant. I find myself acutely aware of my lover's emotional states. I am concerned with his happiness. I will do whatever I can to help him with his life, his feelings, his problems, hopes, goals, etc. I will do whatever I can to make him feel safe and comfortable in my house.

But at the exact same time that I am aware of him, I am also aware of my family, my work, my self, my other obligations in life, etc. I prioritize what I pay attention to pragmatically, based on present need. That means that, although my lover is always present in my mind, he is not always going to be the primary focus of my mind. Sometimes he will be put into the background while I think about other things. I will do this right in front of him. He just has to wait his turn.

So although I am always aware of my man, I am not always involved with him. Although I love him, he is not MORE important to me than my mother or myself. He is equally important. And being equally important requires him to share equally -- share my attention with those other people and things that matter in my life.

And since I don't compartmentalize my life to keep the parts of it separate, he has to be aware that he is sharing me with others (and with me). He has to experience being put into the background for someone or something else. And those other people have to learn to wait their turn for him, as well.

There's also the matter that I don't sexualize everything in a sexual relationship. Some things are neutral and always will be. For example, from an earlier post of yours:
It's more complex than this though. I mean really, how pleasurable or arousing is it to get someone a beer?

Some people might find that deeply pleasurable or arousing, but not me. For me, it's just an action. Completely neutral. My lover wants a beer. He asks me to get him one. I go to the fridge and get him one. I probably get myself a snack while I'm at it. I open his beer and hand it to him. I go about my business. Moment passes, barely noticed and almost immediately forgotten. During the whole process, I probably never stopped thinking about whatever it was I was thinking about before he asked for the beer. I probably don't even make eye contact with him when I hand him the thing. I probably don't notice whether he thanks me or not.

To me there is no difference at all between getting a beer for my lover and getting a beer for my mom or for a houseguest. It's just something one does to be nice. It means nothing.

"Mur, will you make coffee?" "Sure."

is not much different from me saying:

"I'm going to make coffee. Would you like some?"

I say the same words to people who are not my lover, and with the same feelings about it. I don't feel all warm and special just because this one person I'm making coffee for is someone I will be fucking later on. It's just coffee, for crying out loud.

And if I can't get the beer or make the coffee or whatever, I'll say, "Not right now, sorry." That means lover-boy either gets it himself or waits his turn.

I get the sense that a submissive would stop what they were doing -- declogging a drain, washing their hair, doing yoga, whatever -- to go and get the dom's beverage. I would not. I would finish what I was doing and then get it. If I remembered. If my brain had not started working on something else in the meantime.

By the way, the above paragraph about me getting a beer for my man is an accurate description of how I do things for my lovers. I've had boyfriends got away with quite a lot of little tricks because I was mentally occupied with something else. "Honey, could you get me <whatever>?"; rinse; repeat. If I'm mentally involved with something, that can go on for up to an hour, with me handing him things like a snack/beverage dispensing robot, before I look up and say, "What the fuck are you bothering me for?"

And I've had said boyfriends laugh and say they were waiting to see how long it would take for me to notice what they were up to.

This can apply to sex as well. I have had boyfriends who enjoyed trying to distract me with sex while I was working. Apparently, it's not easy. My lover can practically be full-fledged fucking me, and I won't stop what I'm doing until I reach "a good stopping point" to join him, even though he is already using most of my body. That is, unless he succeeds in distracting me, which usually means hitting one of those magic spots that trigger near instant orgasm. Then I stop working. ;)

(By the way, I use the word "working" very loosely. It just means my brain is working on something. It could be art, writing, reading, a crossword puzzle, arguing on NSG, anything.)

I've had lovers who totally got off on the challenge of getting me to interrupt my train of thought for them. They liked breaking that barrier by exciting my body enough that it would override my mind.

I like that, too. A lot.

But I've dated a lot of guys who hated it, and those relationships ended quickly. Those guys experienced me as not "needing" them, as being too independent, and that turned them off. Majorly. I can't blame them. I'm not everyone's cup of tea.

I have no idea whether any of that made any sense at all.

Some people are control freaks who like to control everything in their lives. For them the world is a scary place and only by controlling as many variables as possible can the world be even a remotely livable place.

I'm like that. Only as far as I know I'm not into the D/s thing. And I find the whole idea of controlling another person abhorrent. And I'm pretty sure D/s isn't about controlling. Or something. I dunno, it was more coherent in my head. I think I need to sleep or something.

E: D/s involves consent from both parties. As such, it does not truly involve control, rather the illusion of control or lack thereof.

I honestly don't know. I just know that it really, really is.

Part of it, though, I think, is the idea that, in a way, he's giving me permission to be flawed and human. When he calls me a slut, or a bitch, he's sort of telling me that even though I am sometimes "bad," he cares about me not just in spite of but because of those faults. That's very....freeing, if that makes any sense?

ETA: And Smunk and Sin are right to note that "abuse" really isn't the right term; I don't like "abuse" one bit - but I knew what you meant. :p
I guess then that I'm too egotistical for D/s. I have never felt the slightest need for permission to be flawed and human. I tend to think of all my flaws as perfections, anyway. :p (Not really, but I am shockingly conceited. I get laughed at for it.) And when someone -- lover or anyone else -- says something that seems to be giving me such permission, rather than take it as a gesture of love, I get annoyed, thinking "Who do they think they are? When I need their permission for something, I'll ask for it."

One of the toughest bitches I know is a sub....not to me to her husband. NOT a woman I want to cross.

Just a thought.

I miss the good ol' days. :(

http://www.familychronicle.com/images/marriagecustoms02.gif
Ah, you're an exhibitionist then, eh?

Yes, and a woman with a bucket -- always important to have one of those standing by. How did we lose that ancient wisdom?

Ah, you're an exhibitionist then, eh?

Yes, and a woman with a bucket -- always important to have one of those standing by. How did we lose that ancient wisdom?

'Tis bundling Lass. Did you not notice the wooden separator between the two?

I guess then that I'm too egotistical for D/s. I have never felt the slightest need for permission to be flawed and human. I tend to think of all my flaws as perfections, anyway. :p (Not really, but I am shockingly conceited. I get laughed at for it.)

Hmph. You are woefully lacking in tolerance for the thing you are so guilty of. :mad:

'Tis bundling Lass. Did you not notice the wooden separator between the two?
I thought that was the woman's hat.

*squints at picture*

Are you sure that's a separator? I think it's her hat.

And what's the bucket for then?

And if they're not supposed to be fucking, then what do they need a separator for when they've got all those people staring at them?

Nope, I definitely think that's just her hat.

I thought that was the woman's hat.

*squints at picture*

Are you sure that's a separator? I think it's her hat.

It might be attached to her hat for the same reason she is wearing that chastity belt of hers.

And what's the bucket for then?

Catching rain, and for the monitors to spit in so they need not leave the room.

Hmph. You are woefully lacking in tolerance for the thing you are so guilty of. :mad:
There can be only one.

It might be attached to her hat for the same reason she is wearing that chastity belt of hers.



Catching rain, and for the monitors to spit in so they need not leave the room.
You've got it all figured out, don't you? A regular Casanova you are. :p

There can be only one.
I am behind you all the way.
















http://timesonline.typepad.com/faith/images/2007/08/08/bush_3

You've got it all figured out, don't you? A regular Casanova you are. :p

I have succeed in charming myself, anyway.

I am behind you all the way.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/faith/images/2007/08/08/bush_3
Why does it look like Jesus is motioning for someone off camera to hand him the shit pie, quiet-like?

I have succeed in charming myself, anyway.
And really, who else matters? :D

Why does it look like Jesus is motioning for someone off camera to hand him the shit pie, quiet-like?

:) Oh, that would be good--but Bush already made such a good one, remember?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/DiscFY2004Pie.gif


And really, who else matters? :D

None!--except...maybe...you?:(

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/DiscFY2004Pie.gif

Looks OK to me, except I would have taken the pieces labeled 'social services' and 'income security' and given them to Veteran's Affairs and the Justice Dept.

:) Oh, that would be good--but Bush already made such a good one, remember?


Yeah, but it's not as funny when we're the ones getting hit with it. :(


None!--except...maybe...you?:(
Well, true, I do matter most of all. I mean, if you're asking me. ;)

Looks OK to me, except I would have taken the pieces labeled 'social services' and 'income security' and given them to Veteran's Affairs and the Justice Dept.

Hm.

http://emergent-culture.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/global-military-spending-2007.jpg

Looks OK to me, except I would have taken the pieces labeled 'social services' and 'income security' and given them to Veteran's Affairs and the Justice Dept.
Quick, where's a Dom?! We need somebody to make this kid read the fucking thread.

Well, Heinleinites showed up, so that pretty much puts an end to all possibility of sexiness. So, I'm off. Good night, Parkus. Have fun with google.

It's right up there with other dominant activities I hear you engage in, like, "Whore, admire these pretty flowers I bought for you, NOW," and "You filthy little slut, do you like the ridiculously sweet birthday present I've been planning for a year? Yeah, you BETTER like it, bitch, because I...put a lot of thought into it."

That's definitely the funniest thing I read on the internet today. But it's kind of true, being D in a D/s relationship involves the constant racking of your brains for something inventive to surprise and please your s.

Yeah, but it's not as funny when we're the ones getting hit with it. :(
Ow. (http://humor.beecy.net/politics/bushisms/piehigher/)
Well, true, I do matter most of all. I mean, if you're asking me. ;)

Your opinion matters because you understand. Everyone else calls me an egotistical prick, but few understand egotistical pricks having feelings like everyone else.

Well, Heinleinites showed up, so that pretty much puts an end to all possibility of sexiness. So, I'm off. Good night, Parkus. Have fun with google.

Night. Sorry the fun was spoiled.

Quick, where's a Dom?! We need somebody to make this kid read the fucking thread.

Yeah, because after 18 pages, it's my one sentence that brings things to a screeching halt and completely derails the topic. While my powers are vast and legion, I'm not quite up to ELE levels.

Well, Heinleinites showed up, so that pretty much puts an end to all possibility of sexiness.

If by that you mean that I embody the last word and ultimate example of pure raw alpha-male animal magnetism, I can only commend you for your perspicacity.

Yeah, because after 18 pages, it's my one sentence that brings things to a screeching halt and completely derails the topic.

Not a good thing.


If by that you mean that I embody the last word and ultimate example of pure raw alpha-male animal magnetism, I can only commend you for your perspicacity.

She said that your presence "puts an end to all possibility of sexiness", so you might be confused on what she meant.

She said that your presence "puts an end to all possibility of sexiness", so you might be confused on what she meant.

I know exactly what she meant. See, this is why I need a 'sarcasm' button right next to the buttons for 'bold' and 'underline', so that if I were to say something along the lines of 'it pains me to no end that I seem to be out of favor with the bitter old maid demographic, it really does' people will know not to reply back and say 'hey, there's no such demographic.'

I know exactly what she meant. See, this is why I need a 'sarcasm' button right next to the buttons for 'bold' and 'underline', so that if I were to say something along the lines of 'it pains me to no end that I seem to be out of favor with the bitter old maid demographic, it really does' people will know not to reply back and say 'hey, there's no such demographic.'

I like her. :(

De gustibus non disputandum, eh? I'm actually fairly indifferent to her most of the time, but somewhere along the line she seems to have conceived an abiding dislike for yours truly.

De gustibus non disputandum, eh?

Rossini was a fine composer--no disputing about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpBh-SC11XA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwlu2umant0

I'm actually fairly indifferent to her most of the time, but somewhere along the line she seems to have conceived an abiding dislike for yours truly.

Probably your views--like saying you are pleased with our budget when half the money in the world spent on the military is due to us.

You'd probably want to tell your kids, if you had any, that your relationship was atypical, if you were doing some kind of slave/master thing, I would think. But there's nothing wrong with it in my view, if everyone's consenting. You'd just want the kids to know they aren't to treat their future spouse like an object unless they wanted to be treated that way.

:) Oh, that would be good--but Bush already made such a good one, remember?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/DiscFY2004Pie.gif


Why national defense had 50% and science had 3%?

Why national defense had 50% and science had 3%?

'Cause the private sector has science covered, while national defense is mainly the government's bag, with a few exceptions.

Edit: That's an odd pie, though. Usually the budget's about 35% or so entitlement spending, which isn't shown there.

I was REALLY REALLY hoping this thread would be all about sex. I guess I have to run back to GM disappointed.

You should be on GM regardless! :fluffle:

I think I already explained that I would do anything for my Keeper because he would never ask me to harm others or harm myself. If I used too much flourishes in my words and I got the information across wrongly, for that I am sorry. However, that doesn't mean that I am crazy or that he is crazy. That doesn't mean the way I feel about him or the things I am willing to do (and lets use "within the set limits", if it makes the posse happy:rolleyes:) for him are wrong. Ultimately, the ones who matter here are the master and the slave. I think Neo Art said as much, even Poli. Certainly Neesika has done so several times.

I did not, I repeat, I did not come into this thread to seek understanding from NSG. I was honestly posting to the OP.

:fluffle:

My question: what of s/D relationships?

If both are consenting, and they don't let it get out of hand, then it's OK.

Hm.

http://emergent-culture.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/global-military-spending-2007.jpg

Yes.

Now increase it by just 7% and the US will finally achieve military parity with the rest of the world, providing it with a satisfactory security level.

That, or annex UK.

De gustibus non disputandum, eh? I'm actually fairly indifferent to her most of the time, but somewhere along the line she seems to have conceived an abiding dislike for yours truly.
You're funny (not in a sexy way, though). I think I've said all of 1 thing to you in the past, oh, what, (guessing) 6 months? And on the basis of one little dig, you jump right to the "bitter old maid" thing, eh? Heh, yeah, bitterness seems to go around. Poking at you is worth it. It makes you spit out laughs. :D

Why national defense had 50% and science had 3%?

http://www.truemajorityshop.com/product/show/5813/

http://www.truemajorityshop.com/images/products/16/5813-45.jpg

Yes.

Now increase it by just 7% and the US will finally achieve military parity with the rest of the world, providing it with a satisfactory security level.

That, or annex UK.

Sad/laughing. I think I understand masochism now, at least in humor.

'Cause the private sector has science covered, while national defense is mainly the government's bag, with a few exceptions.

Edit: That's an odd pie, though. Usually the budget's about 35% or so entitlement spending, which isn't shown there.

They removed social security--which makes sense, since that is just an insurance program run by the Federal Government.

I would like to use the following to describe how I approach relationships:


When I take a lover, that man is integrated into my whole life. He is as much a part of it as my family, my work, my self. And he is on the same level as those things. Neither superior nor inferior to them.

My emotional involvement with a lover is profound and constant. I find myself acutely aware of my lover's emotional states. I am concerned with his happiness. I will do whatever I can to help him with his life, his feelings, his problems, hopes, goals, etc. I will do whatever I can to make him feel safe and comfortable in my house.

But at the exact same time that I am aware of him, I am also aware of my family, my work, my self, my other obligations in life, etc. I prioritize what I pay attention to pragmatically, based on present need. That means that, although my lover is always present in my mind, he is not always going to be the primary focus of my mind. Sometimes he will be put into the background while I think about other things. I will do this right in front of him. He just has to wait his turn.

So although I am always aware of my man, I am not always involved with him. Although I love him, he is not MORE important to me than my mother or myself. He is equally important. And being equally important requires him to share equally -- share my attention with those other people and things that matter in my life.

And since I don't compartmentalize my life to keep the parts of it separate, he has to be aware that he is sharing me with others (and with me). He has to experience being put into the background for someone or something else. And those other people have to learn to wait their turn for him, as well.

Yup. That pretty much sums it up. I don't ever actually feel inferior to my SO. I mean this one. My ex did a great job of making me feel inferior all the time. That didn't tickle my fancy,didn't make me feel wonderful and happy and squeaky with delight. It pissed me off.

There's also the matter that I don't sexualize everything in a sexual relationship. Some things are neutral and always will be. For example, from an earlier post of yours:

Some people might find that deeply pleasurable or arousing, but not me. For me, it's just an action. Completely neutral. My lover wants a beer. He asks me to get him one. I go to the fridge and get him one. I probably get myself a snack while I'm at it. I open his beer and hand it to him. I go about my business. Moment passes, barely noticed and almost immediately forgotten. During the whole process, I probably never stopped thinking about whatever it was I was thinking about before he asked for the beer. I probably don't even make eye contact with him when I hand him the thing. I probably don't notice whether he thanks me or not.

Na, not even I, the sex-crazed lunatic that I am, can sexualise everything in a relationship. Sometimes getting a person a beer is just that. It can be sexual, if it's intended that way. What I mean is, I wouldn't find it all arousing for my SO to ask me to grab him a drink while I'm in the kitchen. If he wasn't actually thinking about it as anything more than that, I wouldn't get any enjoyment out of it beyond just doing something for someone I care about. When we're joking around though, and he brings up the fact that he could tell me to do something...I mean, he's just mentioning it, not even doing it...and that I'd listen...THAT turns me on. There always has to be an element of mutual enjoyment, or it's nothing more than just everyday interaction.

I've got kids, I've got family, community, school, I've got my own life, and he's got his. It would annoy us both to need each other so much that we couldn't function separately. When we're interacting sexually, then yes, we're paying full attention to one another. Some of the things that I find 'sexual' might not considered so in another relationship, but they would be in our context.

This is mostly hypothetical in my current relationship by the way...any D/s dynamic we have is in its infancy. Right now it's mostly just really fantastic rough sex. I wouldn't be comfortable running headlong into an immediate D/s situation. We still have a lot of getting to know each other to do.

You'd probably want to tell your kids, if you had any, that your relationship was atypical, if you were doing some kind of slave/master thing, I would think. But there's nothing wrong with it in my view, if everyone's consenting. You'd just want the kids to know they aren't to treat their future spouse like an object unless they wanted to be treated that way.

Hmmm. I don't imagine us wanting to do those sorts of things in front of the kids anyway. I mean, I might wear a collar, that's not a huge thing, but I'm certainly not going to walk around the house in nothing else when the kids are there. For one thing, they'll bitch at me to get dressed :P

Let me put it this way...nothing kills a libido faster than being interupted by kids. Sexy time is for later.

I was under the impression that when you post about your personal life on a topic concerning relationships, you would expect responses to your post. But not only do you not want us to respond to you, but you also tell us not to speak with each other about your posts.

It is, to be honest, a bit unsettling to be the subject of debate, Parkus. I was, perhaps still am, a bit afraid of social stigma. I know that what my Keeper and I do is not the "accepted" social standard. But it makes us both happy. There's nothing wrong in being happy. Also, we do not harm anyone with this.

Whoever feels disgusted by dom/sub relations, well, he/she does so of their own free will. NSG has taught me something, and that is that I may not agree with something, but that doesn't make it wrong. That's why I have changed my views on a lot of subjects, like incest and polygamy. I may not like the outcome of these, but I will not stand and point fingers. I won't, from now on, be a hypocrite.

I have been subjected to the same level scrutiny by my fellow NS'ers, but if it really offends you I will quit. I was just talking with others; it is not as if I was demanding you answer my questions.

You're talking about me, what pertains to me. Of course you are demanding an answer. But, I also realized, as Neo Art pointed out, that this is about the thread, it's the topic being discussed. And in the long run, whatever your speculations may be, whatever insight you think you're gleaming from my posts, the ones who matter, on a Master/Slave relation are the master and the slave.

It is, to be honest, a bit unsettling to be the subject of debate, Parkus. I was, perhaps still am, a bit afraid of social stigma. I know that what my Keeper and I do is not the "accepted" social standard. But it makes us both happy. There's nothing wrong in being happy. Also, we do not harm anyone with this.

Whoever feels disgusted by dom/sub relations, well, he/she does so of their own free will. NSG has taught me something, and that is that I may not agree with something, but that doesn't make it wrong. That's why I have changed my views on a lot of subjects, like incest and polygamy. I may not like the outcome of these, but I will not stand and point fingers. I won't, from now on, be a hypocrite.



You're talking about me, what pertains to me. Of course you are demanding an answer. But, I also realized, as Neo Art pointed out, that this is about the thread, it's the topic being discussed. And in the long run, whatever your speculations may be, whatever insight you think you're gleaming from my posts, the ones who matter, on a Master/Slave relation are the master and the slave.

I can totally see where it's really uncomfortable to see that your relationship has been discussed at length in your absence. Especially with some of the um, interesting comments made about the D/s lifestyle in this thread. I personally think it was quite brave of you to bring up your relationship in the first place. I also think doing so might have helped some people understand the dynamic a bit more. It's not always easy to wrap one's brain around a lifestyle, relationship, environment, ect that's so completely foreign to one's own.

I can totally see where it's really uncomfortable to see that your relationship has been discussed at length in your absence. Especially with some of the um, interesting comments made about the D/s lifestyle in this thread. I personally think it was quite brave of you to bring up your relationship in the first place. I also think doing so might have helped some people understand the dynamic a bit more. It's not always easy to wrap one's brain around a lifestyle, relationship, environment, ect that's so completely foreign to one's own.

The dynamic I cannot understand; but I cannot understand how any women can be attracted to me, either. I was just a little frightened by Nanatsu no Tsuki's final post at the end of the second page of this thread. Her relationship is totally her business.

I can totally see where it's really uncomfortable to see that your relationship has been discussed at length in your absence. Especially with some of the um, interesting comments made about the D/s lifestyle in this thread. I personally think it was quite brave of you to bring up your relationship in the first place. I also think doing so might have helped some people understand the dynamic a bit more. It's not always easy to wrap one's brain around a lifestyle, relationship, environment, ect that's so completely foreign to one's own.

I don't understand how it's alien...if you love someone, wouldn't you do anything for them? Perform any request, or command, even if it hurts? That's Dom/sub, then, just to a lesser extent.

I don't understand how it's alien...if you love someone, wouldn't you do anything for them? Perform any request, or command, even if it hurts? That's Dom/sub, then, just to a lesser extent.

I don't think that's accurate, in a D/s relationship or not. Just because you love someone, that doesn't mean you're going to do anything for them. Couples do not exist in a state of constant mutual self-sacrifice.

I don't understand how it's alien...if you love someone, wouldn't you do anything for them? Perform any request, or command, even if it hurts? That's Dom/sub, then, just to a lesser extent.

That's not how I see relationships at all. My SO and myself are autonomous creatures. There's things I'd never do for him and he wouldn't do for me. I'd never cut ties with family or friends, I'd never let him put something in or on my body I didn't approve of, there's always deal breakers. And it goes both ways.

That said, one of the great things about him is he'd never ask these things of me, and I'd never intentionally step over one of his boundaries either.

I don't understand how it's alien...if you love someone, wouldn't you do anything for them? Perform any request, or command, even if it hurts?
Um...

NO!?!?!

Um...

NO!?!?!

Am I to understand that you would not saw your leg off if your lover told you to? :tongue:

Am I to understand that you would not saw your leg off if your lover told you to? :tongue:
Sure. And then I'd beat him to death with it. GRAWR!

Seriously though, "love" absolutely positively does NOT mean being willing to do anything for your love-interest. The term for that is "obsession" or "codependency" or "emo goddam high school student who needs to put down the fucking Twilight books."

Sure. And then I'd beat him to death with it. GRAWR!

Seriously though, "love" absolutely positively does NOT mean being willing to do anything for your love-interest. The term for that is "obsession" or "codependency" or "emo goddam high school student who needs to put down the fucking Twilight books."

You put it so perfectly.

http://www.21stcenturyabe.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/lincoln_awesome.jpg

I can totally see where it's really uncomfortable to see that your relationship has been discussed at length in your absence. Especially with some of the um, interesting comments made about the D/s lifestyle in this thread.

Snaffy-chan, you're amazing. Thanks for comprehending that, even if you don't agree with the choice.:)

I personally think it was quite brave of you to bring up your relationship in the first place. I also think doing so might have helped some people understand the dynamic a bit more. It's not always easy to wrap one's brain around a lifestyle, relationship, environment, ect that's so completely foreign to one's own.

I can only hope people do gain, if not an understanding, the inniciative not to judge something just because they do not understand it. I know many here ask to be open-minded about situations that involve homosexuality, incest, polygamy, ect., and I think the same must be asked for those who engage in a D/s relationship.

As Neesika and Poli have stated, in more than one occasion, also Neo Art, we're not oddballs or social pariahs. We enjoy the same things "normal" couples do: i.e. watching movies, talking, kissing. We just enjoy ordering and taking orders. I like it that my Keeper controls the situation, that he tells me what to do. He does not endorse, however, that I don't think for myself or that I let go of my will. He does wants me to let him know about the decisions I'm about to make.

In bed, in sex, well, that's another thing and I know my place in relation to him, and I am happy about that. I do know my first posts may have caused quite a strong impression, perhaps no one here thought I played that way. But I do want to let people know that Nanatsu no Tsuki is one way here, and she's something else for her Keeper. If people are ok with that, you're all welcome. If not, well, you win some, you lose some.:wink:

Sure. And then I'd beat him to death with it. GRAWR!

Seriously though, "love" absolutely positively does NOT mean being willing to do anything for your love-interest. The term for that is "obsession" or "codependency" or "emo goddam high school student who needs to put down the fucking Twilight books."

Define it, then. I mean no hostility (yet), but define it. (also: that description of me is completlely wrong)

I don't understand how it's alien...if you love someone, wouldn't you do anything for them? Perform any request, or command, even if it hurts? That's Dom/sub, then, just to a lesser extent.

I don't think Snaf meant it in any other way but to say that to her, that's not the way to go. She wouldn't engage in this, but isn't about to pass judgement on it either.

While being in this relation I have come to understand love, adoration, submission, they all have certain levels. I would certainly do anything in my power to make my master happy. But, as a last clarification, I know and trust him enough to know he would never do anything to cause me harm.

I don't think Snaf meant it in any other way but to say that to her, that's not the way to go. She wouldn't engage in this, but isn't about to pass judgement on it either.

While being in this relation I have come to understand love, adoration, submission, they all have certain levels. I would certainly do anything in my power to make my master happy. But, as a last clarification, I know and trust him enough to know he would never do anything to cause me harm.

*shrugs* that's well enough, then.

*shrugs* that's well enough, then.

Are you in a D/s relation?

No, I wouldn't be very comfortable being the D...and I haven't had the miracle required to enter any relation.

**stares wide-eyed at Nanatsu's posts in this thread**

That....is awesome.

No, I wouldn't be very comfortable being the D...and I haven't had the miracle required to enter any relation. :lol:

Ah, gotcha.;)

Besides, I think Bottle ripping you to shreds would be more entertaining to read than a PG-rated pinch and giggle party.

I can't really argue with this. :p

If you want to go back to on-topic, be my guest. However, this thread was dying and I decided to have some fun instead of letting it slip into oblivion.

Everyone else was just complaining, despite the fact that certain ones of these complaining go into pages of e-flirting themselves and seem to think it's only ok when they do it.

I think 'chat' and flirting generally contribute to the death of threads, since when people click on the last page and see that all that is going on is some dull chit chat that they have no interest in, they wont contribute, when they would have done a few pages earlier, since it was still on topic.

Everyone else was just complaining, despite the fact that certain ones of these complaining go into pages of e-flirting themselves and seem to think it's only ok when they do it.

Exactly. And I am not going to apologize to anyone. I won't be a hypocrite when it's obvious some people here can engage in the same behavior they claim to be "stalwartly" against while others are called "emo" and "lovey-dovey".

Ah, yes, and I just love it so much when then you see the throngs rallying behind them. Yes, NSG is a hive-mind. You don't like the thread, report it. There's no pornography. But by all means, report it. Get a mod here and close it down. Whatever.

Oh, oh, and before I forget it, NSG, yes, Galloism is my Keeper. Take it anyway you please.

Hence why I used the term "certain ones" and not "all."

*squints* I believe I must get some more caffeine, and get out of the thread before I make a larger mistake. :tongue:

*squints* I believe I must get some more caffeine, and get out of the thread before I make a larger mistake. :tongue:

Nah, that's fine. I'm just clarifying what I said.

I think you vs Bottle would have been on topic, since the topic is about the nature of D/s relationships, and the fundamental difference between a D/s person's idea of "love" and a non-D/s person's idea of "love" is enlightening to that topic.

Gallo and Nanatsu playing cutsey-pie isn't enlightening to anything.

Besides, I think Bottle ripping you to shreds would be more entertaining to read than a PG-rated pinch and giggle party.

Regardless of skill, I would've won. Because, quite simply, love is a word, and the earth is my reference for how it's used. Wheras Bottle...

Yes, NSG is a hive-mind.

Come now Nanatsu, there are cliques and groups, but NSG is hardly a hive-mind.

*DELETES THE MASSIVE DERAIL*

Keep on topic, you mallards.

It is, to be honest, a bit unsettling to be the subject of debate, Parkus. I was, perhaps still am, a bit afraid of social stigma. I know that what my Keeper and I do is not the "accepted" social standard. But it makes us both happy. There's nothing wrong in being happy. Also, we do not harm anyone with this.

Whoever feels disgusted by dom/sub relations, well, he/she does so of their own free will. NSG has taught me something, and that is that I may not agree with something, but that doesn't make it wrong. That's why I have changed my views on a lot of subjects, like incest and polygamy. I may not like the outcome of these, but I will not stand and point fingers. I won't, from now on, be a hypocrite.



Does anyone else think that sounded scarily like one of the fucked up speeches from South Park?

Regardless of skill, I would've won. Because, quite simply, love is a word, and the earth is my reference for how it's used. Wheras Bottle...
So love means being willing to do anything for your love-target, and winning means announcing victory.

Somewhere, an English teacher is crying.

Since you've asked so nicely (<--**SARCASM!**), allow me to walk you through why love does not require stalker behavior. Let's take it step by step:

-Asserting that you will "do anything" another person asks, with no limitations, is one of the most profoundly stupid things a human being can possibly assert. It is not a compliment to your lover; it is an announcement that you are obsessive and co-dependent and unstable.

-While love is often positively correlated with stupidity, correlation does not equal causation.

-It is, in the end, possible to be in love without being or becoming profoundly stupid.


You state that "the world" is your reference for the definition of "love." This is your first mistake. A lot of people, particularly people who are in love, have no idea what words mean. Just look at the number of people who believe that they just celebrated their "three month anniversary." Anniversary. From the word "annual." Meaning once a year.

Moral: Peer pressure is a stupid reason to believe in anything, including but not limited to incorrect definitions of words.

A thought occurs:

There are individuals in this thread who choose to be in D/s relationships, who I think probably understand my point better than the average human. It is a common mistake to think that subs are surrendering their own judgment and will; if anything, in some D/s partnerships the sub holds the most power, because they can call a stop at any time. The very nature of D/s relationships underscores this, because in such relationships there is a careful understanding that both parties must consent or it's no damn fun. The sub in a typical D/s relationship is significantly less submissive than what Aresion describes as the behavior of a normal person who is in "love."

A thought occurs:

There are individuals in this thread who choose to be in D/s relationships, who I think probably understand my point better than the average human.

Ah, Bottle nails it again. Yes, it's about choice. I was not forced into submission, I entered it freely.

It is a common mistake to think that subs are surrendering their own judgment and will; if anything, in some D/s partnerships the sub holds the most power, because they can call a stop at any time.

Yes, again.

The very nature of D/s relationships underscores this, because in such relationships there is a careful understanding that both parties must consent or it's no damn fun. The sub in a typical D/s relationship is significantly less submissive than what Aresion describes as the behavior of a normal person who is in "love."

I'm not sure which are Aresion's ideas on the D/s relation. Whatever his thoughts, I respect. But you hit the nerve there, it's always about consent. I consented to be the sub, what's more, I asked my Dom for it. He consented, yet again, to enforce his dominance (:p). Consent is paramount.

Ah, Bottle nails it again. Yes, it's about choice. I was not forced into submission, I entered it freely.



Yes, again.



I'm not sure which are Aresion's ideas on the D/s relation. Whatever his thoughts, I respect. But you hit the nerve there, it's always about consent. I consented to be the sub, what's more, I asked my Dom for it. He consented, yet again, to enforce his dominance (:p). Consent is paramount.

Ooooo punny, now to be temporarily serious. I'm WAY over my head in this discussion but Bottle seems to have nailed it pretty much right on the head. The issue is about mutual consent. In ANY relationship both parties are consenting. This is what separates what a "normal" (be that homo or hetero sexual, or both, or niether, and/or a Dom/sub relationship and . . .ok you get the point) relationship from co-dependancy, stalkerism, obession etc.

again this is just my view and i am way WAY out of my depth here having had litterally no experience in any sort of dom/sub relationship.

Ooooo punny, now to be temporarily serious. I'm WAY over my head in this discussion but Bottle seems to have nailed it pretty much right on the head. The issue is about mutual consent. In ANY relationship both parties are consenting. This is what separates what a "normal" (be that homo or hetero sexual, or both, or niether, and/or a Dom/sub relationship and . . .ok you get the point) relationship from co-dependancy, stalkerism, obession etc.

It certainly does.

I was going to reply to your statement, but my views match Nanatsu's...about exactly. Now, a slight difference there may be, but your interpretation of my statement was...way off.

I was going to reply to your statement, but my views match Nanatsu's...about exactly. Now, a slight difference there may be, but your interpretation of my statement was...way off.

What do you think about this subject? Why do you say your views match mine? I'm not seeking an argument, I just would like to know.

Well, on D/s, I have to say consent is paramount, and a huge part of it.

A thought occurs:

There are individuals in this thread who choose to be in D/s relationships, who I think probably understand my point better than the average human. It is a common mistake to think that subs are surrendering their own judgment and will; if anything, in some D/s partnerships the sub holds the most power, because they can call a stop at any time. The very nature of D/s relationships underscores this, because in such relationships there is a careful understanding that both parties must consent or it's no damn fun. The sub in a typical D/s relationship is significantly less submissive than what Aresion describes as the behavior of a normal person who is in "love."

What if the dom is taking advantage of the sub's infatuation? The sub may do things it does not wish to do, simply because it is worried about losing the dom's love.

What if the dom is taking advantage of the sub's infatuation? The sub may do things it does not wish to do, simply because it is worried about losing the dom's love.

The D/s relationship is not based in love, per se. At least this is so in my experience. Yes, I do feel for my master, I feel a lot, but that is not the basis of the dynamic.

The D/s relationship is not based in love, per se. At least this is so in my experience. Yes, I do feel for my master, I feel a lot, but that is not the basis of the dynamic.

Is it a father and daughter type of thing?

Is it a father and daughter type of thing?

No, that is just creepy. It's more of a teahcer/student sort of thing, sensei/kouhai.

No, that is just creepy.

I thought you said you have learned to tolerate incest. :D

It's more of a teahcer/student sort of thing, sensei/kouhai.

Except...with sex.

I thought you said you have learned to tolerate incest. :D

Yes, I tolerate it. That doesn't mean I want it for myself.:wink:

Except...with sex.

Not only sex. The exchange is at all levels, we just don't demand the feeling of love to be present. We converse, he teaches me things, I learn, I teach back. It's pretty normal, congenial, but he dictates, I obey.

What if the dom is taking advantage of the sub's infatuation? The sub may do things it does not wish to do, simply because it is worried about losing the dom's love.
Of course...but that's not unique to D/s relationships. That kind of thing can happen in any relationship, from vanilla to kinky, and can also happen in non-romantic or non-sexual relationships.

Of course...but that's not unique to D/s relationships. That kind of thing can happen in any relationship, from vanilla to kinky, and can also happen in non-romantic or non-sexual relationships.

It is still a lot more dangerous if the sub will do anything the dom asks.

It is still a lot more dangerous if the sub will do anything the dom asks.

Why is it more dangerous? This doesn't make sense to me yet.

Why is it more dangerous? This doesn't make sense to me yet.

One person striving to do anything another asks in relationship sounds dangerous to me. And yes, that type of relationship is definitely a D/s, just an exaggerated D/s.

If both consent then it's fine.

This


If they want to do it, fine by me.

I dont invade other peoples lives.

It is still a lot more dangerous if the sub will do anything the dom asks.

Parkus, the keys to a D/s relation, beside consent, are also respect and trust.

Parkus, the keys to a D/s relation, beside consent, are also respect and trust.
Which is more than can be said for "traditional marriage." :P

Which is more than can be said for "traditional marriage." :P

Apparently so. Marriage scares the heck out of me.

Parkus, the keys to a D/s relation, beside consent, are also respect and trust.

I respect some; I can never completely trust anyone--he could develop psychological issues, or something else could happen. Remember, there was a woman who dated Ted Bundy, and fell madly in love with him.

I respect some; I can never completely trust anyone--he could develop psychological issues, or something else could happen.

I can understand that. But I am just talking from my own D/s experience. I trust my Keeper, and he trusts me. We respect each other's space, needs, thoughts and ideas. We know our brinks, and although I know I would do anything for him, he would never ask me to endanger myself. That, in itself, is the basis of my respect for him.

Remember, there was a woman who dated Ted Bundy, and fell madly in love with him.

Love may be a factor, Parkus, but it's not always like that. And I think your views on this kind of relations are quite bleak. I won't blame you for them.

I can understand that. But I am just talking from my own D/s experience. I trust my Keeper, and he trusts me. We respect each other's space, needs, thoughts and ideas. We know our brinks, and although I know I would do anything for him, he would never ask me to endanger myself. That, in itself, is the basis of my respect for him.



Love may be a factor, Parkus, but it's not always like that. And I think your views on this kind of relations are quite bleak. I won't blame you for them.

Does he ask you to call him that? (or rather tell you)

I can understand that. But I am just talking from my own D/s experience. I trust my Keeper, and he trusts me. We respect each other's space, needs, thoughts and ideas. We know our brinks, and although I know I would do anything for him, he would never ask me to endanger myself. That, in itself, is the basis of my respect for him.

Like I said, I could never trust someone not to ask me to endanger myself. No matter how normal someone seems, there is always the possibility of an anomaly.

Love may be a factor, Parkus, but it's not always like that. And I think your views on this kind of relations are quite bleak. I won't blame you for them.

Well, I suppose I am preposterously cynical. But that does not mean I cannot enjoy love and live. I enjoy role-playing-games, even though I know full well I am just indulging in bullshit.

Does he ask you to call him that? (or rather tell you)

Keeper? I gave him that name. I usually refer to him in 2 other ways, in bed as "master" and use his name when in public.

and use his name when in public.

Which leads to my question, in public do you, and anyone in a D/s relationship, stay in character, for want of a better phrase?

Like I said, I could never trust someone not to ask me to endanger myself. No matter how normal someone seems, there is always the possibility of an anomaly.

Understood.

Well, I suppose I am preposterously cynical. But that does not mean I cannot enjoy love and live. I enjoy role-playing-games, even though I know full well I am just indulging in bullshit.

I can understand your cynism. I do not suffer from it, yet, but I understand it and I won't begrudge it to you.

D/s is not a role-playing game, it's a lifestyle.

Which leads to my question, in public do you, and anyone in a D/s relationship, stay in character, for want of a better phrase?

No, I refer to him by his name and he calls me by mine.

I can understand your cynism. I do not suffer from it, yet, but I understand it and I won't begrudge it to you.

I prefer to consider in enlightenment rather than suffering; I am not unhappy.

D/s is not a role-playing game, it's a lifestyle.

I was not talking about D/s, I was talking about life and love in general.

Keeper? I gave him that name. I usually refer to him in 2 other ways, in bed as "master" and use his name when in public.

Master? Do like... sort of worship him? (sorry for the way I phrased it, I'm not great at English)

I prefer to consider in enlightenment rather than suffering; I am not unhappy.

That's only known by you.

I was not talking about D/s, I was talking about life and love in general.

Life, love, any of those states, are not roleplaying games.

Master? Do like... sort of worship him? (sorry for the way I phrased it, I'm not great at English)

No, not worship him, but respect him.

No, not worship him, but respect him.

I don't see it can be healthy for you. How do you know where the line is? How do you know if something goes too far? I wouldn't like it (either side).

I don't see it can be healthy for you. How do you know where the line is? How do you know if something goes too far? I wouldn't like it (either side).

RoI, sweetie, go back a few pages so you can get an idea of what I've been trying to explain, along with several other posters, exactly what you're asking.:wink:

I don't see it can be healthy for you. How do you know where the line is? How do you know if something goes too far? I wouldn't like it (either side).

She has made it clear that she does not want anyone criticizing her.

She has made it clear that she does not want anyone criticizing her.

I wasn't trying to criticise her! I was expressing my concern for the safety of people in D/s relationships. I couldn't do that.

I wasn't trying to criticise her! I was expressing my concern for the safety of people in D/s relationships. I couldn't do that.

Parkus is responding to me asking him to stop analyzing me a few pages back.

The rules were placed upon the table when we decided we both wanted to enter the D/s relation. That's how I know things will not get out of hand.

I wasn't trying to criticise her! I was expressing my concern for the safety of people in D/s relationships. I couldn't do that.

"Criticize" is United States spelling. I tried what you now try, and it pissed-her-off.

Which leads to my question, in public do you, and anyone in a D/s relationship, stay in character, for want of a better phrase?

Yes and no. There are certainly things we do in private that I see no need to share with the world, but I still follow his orders and such in public. However, he's not crazy, so they're not exactly the sort of orders anyone around us would particularly notice, anyway. "Go get me a Dr. Pepper" when we're out to eat doesn't exactly scream "She must be his sex slave!" to the world. :p

I don't see it can be healthy for you. How do you know where the line is? How do you know if something goes too far? I wouldn't like it (either side).

Because, speaking for myself, I'm a sane, rational person. If he were to order me to go kill people or something, I would obviously say no and start looking into psychiatric care for him. I know where the line is because beyond the line I'm not happy, and if I'm not happy, I tell him so - and because he's a sane, rational, decent person himself, if I'm not happy, he stops doing whatever was making me unhappy. Like I said before, it's really not so different from any other relationship.

Parkus is responding to me asking him to stop analyzing me a few pages back.

The rules were placed upon the table when we decided we both wanted to enter the D/s relation. That's how I know things will not get out of hand.
How long (may I ask:$ ) have you been in the relationship? And is it your first(D/s) ?
"Criticize" is United States spelling. I tried what you now try, and it pissed-her-off.
You're writing in English, are you not? Then write it properly. Leave out those unnecessary Zs.
Yes and no. There are certainly things we do in private that I see no need to share with the world, but I still follow his orders and such in public. However, he's not crazy, so they're not exactly the sort of orders anyone around us would particularly notice, anyway. "Go get me a Dr. Pepper" when we're out to eat doesn't exactly scream "She must be his sex slave!" to the world. :p
Another one? I'd never heard of this type of relationship before.

How long (may I ask:$ ) have you been in the relationship? And is it your first(D/s) ?

An average of 3 months and yes, this is my first D/s.

Because, speaking for myself, I'm a sane, rational person. If he were to order me to go kill people or something, I would obviously say no and start looking into psychiatric care for him. I know where the line is because beyond the line I'm not happy, and if I'm not happy, I tell him so - and because he's a sane, rational, decent person himself, if I'm not happy, he stops doing whatever was making me unhappy. Like I said before, it's really not so different from any other relationship.

That makes sense. But for someone who is in a less stable D/s relationship, it might be quite dangerous.

An average of 3 months and yes, this is my first D/s.

An average?

Another one? I'd never heard of this type of relationship before.

Heh, check the poll. There's a few of us in here. ;)

And, truth be told, I didn't know anything about D/s when I was a teenager, either. I still laugh when I remember how horrified I was when my ex presented the idea to me, because what little I knew about BDSM had me thinking that it was all about carving your initials into prostitutes or something. :p

An average?

Yes, I entered it 3 months ago. I had been thinking about it for almost a year.

That makes sense. But for someone who is in a less stable D/s relationship, it might be quite dangerous.

Yes and no.

I come at this from a fairly odd perspective, because my last D/s relationship did turn abusive - but as I said earlier in the thread, I don't think it would have gone any less sour if we'd been entirely vanilla. I do think it might not have been quite so easy for my ex to convince me that I needed to put up with his mistreatment. I also think, though, that had we been totally un-kinky, it probably would have been even easier for him to get away with things he didn't get away with, because, given the nature of the D/s relationship, we'd explicitly discussed them and he was entirely aware that I did not consent to them. It kinda balances out.

I think, too, there is a fundamental misunderstanding that leads a lot of people to believe that submissive = doormat. It doesn't. Neesika is a rather obvious example of just how far from the truth that is. :p Some submissives are going to be the sort of people who put up with too much shit from a partner, just like some vanilla people are, but I don't think there's any particular correlation between liking to submit to one person you know and trust and being a pushover in general.

Heh, check the poll. There's a few of us in here. ;)

And, truth be told, I didn't know anything about D/s when I was a teenager, either. I still laugh when I remember how horrified I was when my ex presented the idea to me, because what little I knew about BDSM had me thinking that it was all about carving your initials into prostitutes or something. :p
That's what I thought it was when I started reading this thread.
Yes, I entered it 3 months ago. I had been thinking about it for almost a year.
Still don't get the average part.

How did you find out about it?

Still don't get the average part.

How did you find out about it?

Well, it's been, roughly, like 3 months already since I entered it.

I have always been interested in it after watching a special on HBO, I think it was, several years ago. I was enthralled by the dynamics of the relation and always pondered asking my partner to be my master. Turns out not all men can handle this. My last 2 partners weren't able to apply it to the relation. That was until I met my current Keeper 7 months ago.

Yes and no.

I come at this from a fairly odd perspective, because my last D/s relationship did turn abusive - but as I said earlier in the thread, I don't think it would have gone any less sour if we'd been entirely vanilla. I do think it might not have been quite so easy for my ex to convince me that I needed to put up with his mistreatment. I also think, though, that had we been totally un-kinky, it probably would have been even easier for him to get away with things he didn't get away with, because, given the nature of the D/s relationship, we'd explicitly discussed them and he was entirely aware that I did not consent to them. It kinda balances out.
Did you know to get out strait away? 'Cos allot of women don't ( even if they're not in a D/s relationship).
I think, too, there is a fundamental misunderstanding that leads a lot of people to believe that submissive = doormat. It doesn't. Neesika is a rather obvious example of just how far from the truth that is. :p Some submissives are going to be the sort of people who put up with too much shit from a partner, just like some vanilla people are, but I don't think there's any particular correlation between liking to submit to one person you know and trust and being a pushover in general.
Does it go the other way? Do men generally be submissive? I think it would be pretty good in the bedroom, but not anywhere else.

Does it go the other way? Do men generally be submissive? I think it would be pretty good in the bedroom, but not anywhere else.

Yes, the dynamic applies too to men wanting to be subs and women doms.

That's what I thought it was when I started reading this thread.


Hehe, definitely not. Like I said earlier in the thread, my boyfriend and I are pretty much normal people. We cuddle while we watch movies, we cook each other dinner, we have stupid cute in-jokes, we make fun of each other's quirks...and I follow his orders and consider myself his property. He would never do anything to me I didn't consent to, and I'd kick his ass if he ever did, anyway. :p

Well, it's been, roughly, like 3 months already since I entered it.
I still don't get the average part. I know it's been 3 months but, why average?
I have always been interested in it after watching a special on HBO, I think it was, several years ago. I was enthralled by the dynamics of the relation and always pondered asking my partner to be my master. Turns out not all men can handle this. My last 2 partners weren't able to apply it to the relation. That was until I met my current Keeper 7 months ago.

Hmmm, I dunno if I could do it either. I'd rather be submissive.

Another one? I'd never heard of this type of relationship before.
I think I know more D/s people than vanilla. LOL

I still don't get the average part. I know it's been 3 months but, why average?

Chalk it up as me using the word incorrectly.

Hehe, definitely not. Like I said earlier in the thread, my boyfriend and I are pretty much normal people. We cuddle while we watch movies, we cook each other dinner, we have stupid cute in-jokes, we make fun of each other's quirks...and I follow his orders and consider myself his property. He would never do anything to me I didn't consent to, and I'd kick his ass if he ever did, anyway. :p
Lulz.

So, it is like a "normal" (soz) relationship, with tenderness and whatnot, but he's your owner.

Lulz.

So, it is like a "normal" (soz) relationship, with tenderness and whatnot, but he's your owner.

I think that's pretty much what she just tried to tell you.:wink:

I think I know more D/s people than vanilla. LOL
Really!? Do you have a club or something? :tongue:
Chalk it up as me using the word incorrectly.

Will do.

Will do.

;)
Ok.

Did you know to get out strait away? 'Cos allot of women don't ( even if they're not in a D/s relationship).

Sadly, no. I was all-too-typical of "battered wives" and the like; I convinced myself for a very long time that it was somehow my fault that he treated me like shit. Even years later, it's still hard sometimes to believe that he was just an asshole and I never deserved any of it. It helps a lot that nowadays I'm with an infinitely superior guy who treats me wonderfully. :)

Does it go the other way? Do men generally be submissive? I think it would be pretty good in the bedroom, but not anywhere else.

Sure, there are lots of male submissives, as well as lots of people of both genders who consider themselves "switches" - i.e. sometimes they like to give the orders, and sometimes they like to take them. As for confining one's kink to the bedroom, that's quite common, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Another one? I'd never heard of this type of relationship before.

That's because you're 15.

Lulz.

So, it is like a "normal" (soz) relationship, with tenderness and whatnot, but he's your owner.

Precisely. :)

Yes, the dynamic applies too to men wanting to be subs and women doms.
But, if I were a "sub", I'd feel like other men would look down on me. It would make me less of a man.
Sadly, no. I was all-too-typical of "battered wives" and the like; I convinced myself for a very long time that it was somehow my fault that he treated me like shit. Even years later, it's still hard sometimes to believe that he was just an asshole and I never deserved any of it. It helps a lot that nowadays I'm with an infinitely superior guy who treats me wonderfully. :)
Men are bastards.


That's because you're 15.
So?

But, if I were a "sub", I'd feel like other men would look down on me. It would make me less of a man.

Two points there:

1. Then they are idiots.
2. Why tell them?

Men are bastards.

Some of them, certainly. Not all.



So?

So you've necessarily only had 15 years in which to learn about things, and thus there are pretty much bound to be gaps in your knowledge that someone who's had 25 or 30 or 87 years to learn about things won't have - especially when it comes to "adult" topics like sex and relationships.

Two points there:

1. Then they are idiots.
2. Why tell them?
1) True. But for some reason I still care about what they think of me.
2) They might just find out/


Some of them, certainly. Not all.

Most of 'em that I've met.


So you've necessarily only had 15 years in which to learn about things, and thus there are pretty much bound to be gaps in your knowledge that someone who's had 25 or 30 or 87 years to learn about things won't have - especially when it comes to "adult" topics like sex and relationships.
True, but I'm not stupid and I'm not a virgin.

True, but I'm not stupid and I'm not a virgin.

It's nothing to do with being "stupid." You know more now than you did when you were five, or ten, or fourteen, yes? You weren't any more stupid at any of those ages. You'd just had less experience of the world. Saying that most 15-year-olds probably aren't familiar with assorted relationship dynamics should be no more insulting than saying that most 15-year-olds probably aren't familiar with filling out income tax forms or raising children.

It's nothing to do with being "stupid." You know more now than you did when you were five, or ten, or fourteen, yes? You weren't any more stupid at any of those ages. You'd just had less experience of the world. Saying that most 15-year-olds probably aren't familiar with assorted relationship dynamics should be no more insulting than saying that most 15-year-olds probably aren't familiar with filling out income tax forms or raising children.

I intend to do neither.

I know more than I did when I was 5, yes. But I know more about computers than 90 year old woman. It's not about age it's experience. Some young people have had to deal with more shit than some other people do in their entire lives.

But, if I were a "sub", I'd feel like other men would look down on me. It would make me less of a man.
Don't worry. You'll either grow out of that attitude, in which case you won't have to worry about it, or you won't grow out of it, in which case you'll be a perpetual adolescent and nobody will want to sleep with you anyhow.

:D

I intend to do neither.


You dont intend to fill out an income tax form?

Let me know how that works out;)

You dont intend to fill out an income tax form?

Let me know how that works out;)

I'll wite to you from prison. :wink:

That's only known by you.

Not at all; it is supported by many, Machiavelli to name one.

Life, love, any of those states, are not roleplaying games.

Life is a role-playing-game in the sense that we pretend we are fair and loving creatures, but we care more about ourselves then anyone else--even you, who are very compassionate toward your Keeper, do not devote the time which would be more altruistically spent helping the needy; you care more for yourself then for them. Even so, you are probably one of the kindest persons I could hope to meet.

Love is a role-playing-game in that, there are many who are willing to die for their beloveds, but not for others more deserving. This shows that love is not a noble thing, but rather an emotional thing. What is more, humans frequently change the object of their true loves. I ask you, have you ever "loved" (or thought you loved) someone before your Keeper?

Not at all; it is supported by many, Machiavelli to name one.



Life is a role-playing-game in the sense that we pretend we are fair and loving creatures, but we care more about ourselves then anyone else--even you, who are very compassionate toward your Keeper, do not devote the time which would be more altruistically spent helping the needy; you care more for yourself then for them. Even so, you are probably one of the kindest persons I could hope to meet.
Nah, people can at times care more for someone else than themselves. Like when someone saves someone's life and dies themselves.
Love is a role-playing-game in that, there are many who are willing to die for their beloveds, but not for others more deserving. This shows that love is not a noble thing, but rather an emotional thing. What is more, humans frequently change the object of their true loves. I ask you, have you ever "loved" (or thought you loved) someone before your Keeper?

True (sort of).


That's a point, Nanatsu Sempai, do you love him?

"Love thy neighbour as thyself" kinda breaks down in s/m terms, I think. :D

Nah, people can at times care more for someone else than themselves. Like when someone saves someone's life and dies themselves.

Instinct, as in the feeling of a mother and child, desire for social approval, or guilt for not saving the life are the only motivators.

True (sort of).


That's a point, Nanatsu Sempai, do you love him?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14656803&postcount=37

Instinct, as in the feeling of a mother and child, desire for social approval, or guilt for not saving the life are the only motivators.

Social approval!? Are you insane? That would not be the thing runnig through my head if I saw someone dying and I could stop it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14656803&postcount=37

To be fair, they haven't been together that long.

Social approval!? Are you insane? That would not be the thing runnig through my head if I saw someone dying and I could stop it.

Not through your head consciously; that would be your unconscious desire, though. It has a lot to do with the fact that females want dependable mates, and that men are trying to prove their dependability through bravery. If you were brought-up in a society which did not value bravery, then I virtually guarantee you that would not risk your life for another.

Not through your head consciously; that would be your unconscious desire, though. It has a lot to do with the fact that females want dependable mates, and that men are trying to prove their dependability through bravery. If you were brought-up in a society which did not value bravery, then I virtually guarantee you that would not risk your life for another.

Preservation of life.

Preservation of life.

Yes; two things we care about, due to evolution: passing-on our genes and preserving life.

Many children desperately need adoption, yet couples generally prefer to create children, which shows that humans are more driven by basic urges than altruism.

Yes; two things we care about, due to evolution: passing-on our genes and preserving life.

Many children desperately need adoption, yet couples generally prefer to create children, which shows that humans are more driven by basic urges than altruism.

It proves it on that count, not on every other one.

It proves it on that count, not on every other one.

Let us take the President, a man the country chose to put in power: Our military budget is as large as the rest of the world combined, and Obama sees fit to increase by it 4%, while he finances a luxury war in Afghanistan--money that could be used to help the poor. Many persons would describe Obama as a "good man"; this shows you what our society considers "ideal". Like Cheney said, America loves wars, America enjoys revenge. I add that they enjoy revenge more than altruism.

I think I know more D/s people than vanilla. LOL

This is what I was just thinking.

Most relationships have D/s elements in them, just as most sexual relationships have elements of S&M, etc.

I think more people are open to admitting it now, than ever - and more people REALISE that they are already in D/s relationships. I'd say even half the vanillas I know are actually skirting BDSM reasonably actively.

But, if I were a "sub", I'd feel like other men would look down on me. It would make me less of a man.


I've been in both sides of the relationship, and being a dom doesn't make you more of a man than you were 'before', and being sub doesn't make you less of a man.

If I was interested in a girl, and in a position to do something about it, and she wanted me to be her sub, and I wanted to - other guys can go fuck themselves for all I care. I'll call her goddess with no worries about my masculinity.

Let us take the President, a man the country chose to put in power: Our military budget is as large as the rest of the world combined, and Obama sees fit to increase by it 4%, while he finances a luxury war in Afghanistan--money that could be used to help the poor. Many persons would describe Obama as a "good man"; this shows you what our society considers "ideal". Like Cheney said, America loves wars, America enjoys revenge. I add that they enjoy revenge more than altruism.

Revenge!? Revenge for what precisely?

True (sort of).


That's a point, Nanatsu Sempai, do you love him?

.......

revenge!? Revenge for what precisely?

http://www.latinopundit.com/tragedy-9-11-twin-tower.JPG

.......

???????

???????

She has said she is through with love.

???????

Why do you want to know? That's between my Keeper and me.

What's more, I have to go. Agur!

9/11.

What!? That was yonks ago. You've started two wars since then- lets not start another.

What!? That was yonks ago. You've started two wars since then- lets not start another.

Me? What war am I proposing to start? It is Obama who is hanging-out in Afghanistan.

Why do you want to know? That's between my Keeper and me.

What's more, I have to go. Agur!

I was wondering if there could be love in a D/s relationship.

Hasta la uego.

Me? What war am I proposing to start? It is Obama who is hanging-out in Afghanistan.

Not you personally, your government.

Not you personally, your government.

A government most of the world now approves of. Do you approve of Obama, who spending much more on killing than on saving lives?

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

-Dwight D. Eisenhower, a man Kennedy accused of not spending enough on military armaments.

A government most of the world now approves of. Do you approve of Obama, who spending much more on killing than on saving lives?

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

-Dwight D. Eisenhower, a man Kennedy accused of not spending enough on military armaments.

That was the cold war ya know.

I don't see how Obama's been much better than bush tbh. Except that maybe he's not a complete retard.

I was wondering if there could be love in a D/s relationship.


Most definitely.

That was the cold war ya know.

Ike: "I have increased spending on Nuclear Weapons, made the middle east a priority, ended the Korean war, and begun the space race!"

JFK: "You haven't done enough! I'm going to start a useless war in Vietnam, almost start a thermonuclear war, crush third-world countries, and then cheat on my wife! I'm one of the greatest presidents ever!"

Hasta la uego.

Luego. One word.

That was the cold war ya know.

The quote is still applicable. Our society is built around misconceptions: Nixon decreased military spending, unlike Kennedy; Nixon used fewer wiretaps than Kennedy. Yet because Kennedy seemed so kind, we like to think of him as fine President. Nixon had a cold-heart, but we like to pretend that Kennedy did not. Our "ideal" persons are not moral, we just call them that. We are not moral, we just call ourselves that.

I don't see how Obama's been much better than bush tbh. Except that maybe he's not a complete retard.

Bush increased the military budget by over 70%, and Obama further increased it--he is spending more on the military than Bush did. Obama is not as stunted by religion as Bush is, but other than that, there is, in-fact, little difference. Both are petty, selfish men who think themselves good. Bush was once loved, Obama is now loved, even in Europe. Despite his folly, he is loved. Humans are not rational moralists, they just like to think of themselves that way.

Me? What war am I proposing to start? It is Obama who is hanging-out in Afghanistan.

This looks strangely off-topic.

What is the apparent obsession with derailing THIS thread? What did it do to you people?

This looks strangely off-topic.

What is the apparent obsession with derailing THIS thread? What did it do to you people?

It is NSG's sub-thread, remember? it takes whatever brutal topic we give it.

But in all seriousness, you are right. I propose talking the discussion here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=589428

That's only known by you.



Life, love, any of those states, are not roleplaying games.
Aren't they?

I think I disagree.

You're writing in English, are you not? Then write it properly. Leave out those unnecessary Zs.

You've got a lot of nerve, considering:

Master? Do like... sort of worship him? (sorry for the way I phrased it, I'm not great at English)

Aren't they?

I think I disagree.

Then you are not "romantic" enough. :mad:

Then you are not "romantic" enough. :mad:
"Romantic" is a difficult role to play. I've never mastered it. But I don't mind because I don't find it all that entertaining.

"Romantic" is a difficult role to play. I've never mastered it.

Let me teach you: Let us pretend I have known you for one hour: "I my love, truly my passion have never burned for another! Our happiness shall endure for all time. I would sacrifice anything to but gaze at you." You now tell me you want to bear my children, and immediately let me into your pants.

"Romantic" is a difficult role to play. I've never mastered it. But I don't mind because I don't find it all that entertaining.

The biggest problem is, "Romantic" characters can't use magic items.

And I know how much you love laying waste to entire armies with your Mithral Breast Plate of Laying Waste to Entire Armies +12.

Let me teach you: Let us pretend I have known you for one hour: "Ah, my love, truly my passion has never burned for another! Our happiness shall endure for all time. I would sacrifice anything to but gaze at you." You now tell me you want to bear my children, and immediately let me into your pants.
*fixes grammar* *picks lint off PE's sleeve* *notices PE has brought no chocolate*

Um...no chocolate?

*notices taller man across the room*

:tongue:

The biggest problem is, "Romantic" characters can't use magic items.

And I know how much you love laying waste to entire armies with your Mithral Breast Plate of Laying Waste to Entire Armies +12.
That's pretty much a deal breaker, I have to admit it.

*fixes grammar* *picks lint off PE's sleeve* *notices PE has brought no chocolate*

Um...no chocolate?

*notices taller man across the room*

:tongue:

Here are your problems:

1: Romantic women never fix grammar.

2: You are supposed to take pity upon me and love me for my pathetic condition. You also supposed to dislike attractive men who rival me.

3: You are supposed to want roses rather than chocolate.

Another tip: Inquiring as to whether or not I have a job or an education is an instant turn-off, romantically speaking.

Sorry, you did not pass. Come back next week.