RE: on protocol type

RE: on protocol type (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Homestead -> RE: on protocol type (8/1/2006 7:15:56 AM)
We all have our prefferences, mine are for brevity and clarity. If the slashy speak amuses your master, no other justification is needed.[;)]

RavenMuse -> RE: on protocol type (8/1/2006 7:31:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mavis RavenMuse, Your point about "that discomfort maybe the very reason he is insisting on it." is dead on. He's not some yutz who delights in seeing me uncomfortable, but there is no case where my pride will come before my obedience, and i like that He's firm on that. If submission only happened when it was fun or easy it wouldn't be submission would it g There are points where my girl has to swallow her pride and submit where my ways cross what she would normaly want or be 'comfortable' with. I don't constantly have my girl jumping through hoops but sometimes, yep, I'll get her to do something just to reinforce the dynamic. Mostly when SHE needs it reinforcing. Most of my decisions have other reasons, she is always allowed to ask for my reasoning, she may not get the answer she was looking for, but she is allowed to ask. Glad to see you do appear to have methods whereby you can bring up questions and ask about his reasons, much as my girl is allowed to. It doesn't change the decision but her understanding my reasons builds her trust in how I handle making the decisions. The more trust, the easier for her to be comfortable whether she knows the reason or not.

velvetears -> RE: on protocol type (8/1/2006 7:34:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MstrssPassion (by gosh if I were a sub I would have that listed as a hard limit & make it known at the beginning of negotiations... since I am not a sub, I tell people right away that I expect them to write to me exactly if they were writing a family member or a letter for work related correspondence.) chuckles - what a great idea! i agree if that's what her Master wants who are we to judge or ridicule (not saying anyone here has just that it's been noted that that style has been ridiculed in the past). i would go bonkers trying to remember doing I/it all the T/time sheesh just doing that took 15 seconds lol) - but it doesn't really bother me to read through it.

Homestead -> RE: on protocol type (8/1/2006 7:38:10 AM)
Thisisthesortofwritingthatgetstomepeoplereallyneedtouseproperpunctuationandparagraphs.[;)]

truesub4u -> RE: on protocol type (8/1/2006 7:41:29 AM)
[sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif] quote: ORIGINAL: Homestead Thisisthesortofwritingthatgetstomepeoplereallyneedtouseproperpunctuationandparagraphs.[;)]

SusanofO -> RE: on protocol type (8/1/2006 9:10:42 AM)
Mavis - well if I loved someone I wouldn't leave over a thing like that, either. But what you said about the signs was really funny, he.[:D] - Susan

MistressOfGa -> RE: on protocol type (8/1/2006 9:30:55 AM)
quote: (by gosh if I were a sub I would have that listed as a hard limit & make it known at the beginning of negotiations... since I am not a sub, I tell people right away that I expect them to write to me exactly if they were writing a family member or a letter for work related correspondence.) I can deal with a dominant using caps, such as Mistress so and so and Master so and so and "Me" and "Mine" but the slashes just drive me batty. But I agree, if you have been instructed to use that kind of typing, then of course, you should be doing it. The thing I can't stand is the third person bullshit. OMG, it just drives me nuts to even read it, so most times I dont <s> <Just tossing my two cents worth in>

Homestead -> RE: on protocol type (8/1/2006 9:34:36 AM)
Third person is too stilted and keeps calling attention to the one using that form. If I want to use objectification, I have a slave refer to herself as "it".

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: on protocol type (8/1/2006 9:56:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MstrssPassion Not a person in the world has the right to question her instructions from her master. Except the ones ordered to say "Question me" Again, one of the many reasons to know what you are signing up for BEFORE you sign up for it. However, in general the thing to do is to just let it happen. Let obedience flow from you and see where you go. This isn't a morally compromising order, this isn't an order that will make you question your sense of self or esteem. This is just a cyber quirk thing. Won't hurt anyone or anything to obey. Usually you get used to it and learn to enjoy it at least through service, if not the act itself. quote: it isn't our place to question THEIR dynamics. Questioning someone's dynamics isn't about having a place or not. While I agree there are manners to be followed here, when someone opens themself up to discussion, asking particular questions seems relevant and necessary to assist in the discussion and advice as much as possible.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: on protocol type (8/1/2006 9:58:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RavenMuse If submission only happened when it was fun or easy it wouldn't be submission would it Yes it would :)

OsideGirl -> RE: on protocol type (8/1/2006 11:12:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mavis He says "It's a matter of communication within the lifestyle." He's incorrect. It's a manner of typing that was conceived in a chatroom on IRC on the internet. It became prevalant about 6-7 years ago. Where as the English language has been around for centuries.

Homestead -> RE: on protocol type (8/1/2006 11:22:33 AM)
I think that I will depart the scene on the day that the dancing bannana smiley becomes a treasured "lifestyle convention". [&:]

RavenMuse -> RE: on protocol type (8/1/2006 11:33:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross quote: ORIGINAL: RavenMuse If submission only happened when it was fun or easy it wouldn't be submission would it Yes it would :) Once again we define things somewhat diffrently. Not the first time and I very much doubt it will be the last dear [:D]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125