Jump to content

Unlocked collar? What that means?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 130 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Really? I disagree. I often see them used as the "foreplay" for the broader and more invasive type of interpersonal interactions. I have seen and met virtual Domme's over the years that required spankers and strip clothing on their subs.

This is again a category error. As Quistess points out above, spankers and strip clothing are at most components that might be employed as part of scene, and in and of themselves are neither exclusive to, nor mean "the same" as that scene.

This is like saying that, because one usually takes one's pants off before having sex, taking off one's pants is the same thing as having sex, or necessarily means that one is going to engage in that activity.

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

One is not born a submissive and though time and circumstance can make one fearful and victimized, a good submissive is one by choice rather then because they have to be from either fear or past abuse.

The bolded part is a rather contentious point which I'll let others take up if they want, but, again, it's a category error. Whether or not one "choses" to be a sub, engaging in an activity associated with that role must be an active choice, separate from any choice about one's identity, relating to that particular activity.

Following the logic of your argument would imply anything that was imposed upon you by a Dom(me) would, by actual definition, be a "choice" whether you liked it or not, because you've made the initial choice to "be" a sub. I might "choose" to train and get certified as a pilot: having become a pilot doesn't mean that I don't get a choice about whether I fly an airplane or not.

Choosing to be a sub (or, for that matter, being hard-wired as one) isn't the same thing as choosing to engage with a particular Dom(me), and it definitely doesn't serve as some kind of carte blanche for any Dom(me) to impose upon you, merely because you've made an initial choice to be a sub.

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

The limited scope of what I have shared gives you not nearly enough information to make any sort of judgement for what I may or may not be enabling for abuse or misunderstanding.

Fair enough, but worries me is that you are not articulating these "hidden" safeguards for consent. By omitting them, you are contributing to the vast reams of utter BS and misinformation that infects so much so-called "BDSM" and "D/s" in SL. There are a great many Dom(mes) and subs here who do fully understand the meanings and mechanics of The Lifestyle, and a great many of them, happily, are here on the forums. But you can't swing a cat in SL without hitting someone who is RPing D/s without the foggiest notion of what it actually involves, because their "research" consisted of reading 50 Shades of Grey.

You're not helping this situation here.

The larger point is that you are also still sidestepping my main criticism of your approach, which is that there is a fundamental difference between "doing something subbish" and actually being a sub. Engaging in a scene without that broader framework of explicit consent, power-exchange, and emotional involvement is kink, not BDSM or D/s.

By way of analogy . . . if I have casual one-off sex with someone I met at a club, I've engaged in the activity of having sex. I have not connected with that person meaningfully in any other way. I wouldn't say "I had a relationship last night with someone I met at a club." You shouldn't say "I was a sub for a guy I met at HBC last night" -- because you weren't.

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Engaging in a scene without that broader framework of explicit consent, power-exchange, and emotional involvement is kink, not BDSM or D/s.

Perhaps I'm wrong and you can correct me, but just as a matter of defining what the categories mean, it's my understanding that all those are nested: D/s is under the umbrella of BDSM, BDSM is under the umbrella of kink. ~I would say, that (for example) a well-negotiated tie-up scene* without the emotion or power-exchange falls under BDSM (and therefore kink), but obviously not D/s. Rather technical point though.

*by which I mean, bottom asks to be tied up, top agrees, good communication throughout. I.E. just testing how things work or as a part of a workshop or something.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

It is when it will only allow the RLV toy to act on my controls and/or view. Consent in writing in fact.

If your standard for consent is a scripted dialog box, then that's not really submission .. and not to put too fine a point on it, misses the entire point. We're talking about BDSM as a serious relationship style, whatever you're doing, it's not that.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Quistess Alpha said:

Perhaps I'm wrong and you can correct me, but just as a matter of defining what the categories mean, it's my understanding that all those are nested: D/s is under the umbrella of BDSM, BDSM is under the umbrella of kink. ~I would say, that (for example) a well-negotiated tie-up scene* without the emotion or power-exchange falls under BDSM (and therefore kink), but obviously not D/s. Rather technical point though.

*by which I mean, bottom asks to be tied up, top agrees, good communication throughout. I.E. just testing how things work or as a part of a workshop or something.

I haven't read it quite so clearly defined, but that actually seems a rather logical arrangement.

Although I don't know of any reasonably authoritative source (that I've read, anyway) that would accept that something is "BDSM" without the power-exchange. Maybe I've not been reading carefully enough.

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

don't know of any reasonably authoritative source (that I've read, anyway) that would accept that something is "BDSM" without the power-exchange.

I wouldn't call Wikipedia 'authoritative' but, they seem to say, power-exchange is a common element but not a defining factor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_BDSM

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Quistess Alpha said:

I wouldn't call Wikipedia 'authoritative' but, they seem to say, power-exchange is a common element but not a defining factor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_BDSM

Like most non-prescriptive dictionaries, I think that Wikipedia tends to document actual usage and practice rather than to establish a "correct" definition of these terms. And they clearly are fluid.

In an important sense, as you noted initially, that's about semantics. Arielle is not distinguishing between different practices, and is generalizing from those that don't necessarily involve power-exchange, to all instances.

And, maybe most important, she has some rather worrisome ideas about what constitutes "consent," which is central to any of these definitions.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I haven't read it quite so clearly defined, but that actually seems a rather logical arrangement.

Although I don't know of any reasonably authoritative source (that I've read, anyway) that would accept that something is "BDSM" without the power-exchange. Maybe I've not been reading carefully enough.

Those would be 'weekend' submissives or kinky bottoms.  Playing a scene now and then does not make one a submissive, IMO.

Allowing any random stranger to grab your collar and do with you what they please without a contract of some sort between the 2 parties IS NOT a tenet of a true D/s relationship.  That's just kinky playtime.

Edited by Rowan Amore
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Quistess Alpha said:

I might have skimmed some prior posts, but my 'hot take':

As much as always dealing in very explicit consent (Ex. a profile pick saying: "If my collar is unlocked you may lock it and do anything you want.") can make things smoother for everyone involved, it's not always the most practical or the most fun. So most of the time, one has to deal in rather grey, 'levels of confidence' in consent; Perhaps someone's in a rather BDSM focused sim, wearing a collar on public or with a 'capture' mode, they ~probably expect that someone might take advantage of those things, but perhaps they just didn't know how things worked and forgot to change things back to 'normal' settings. So, what to do? Some of my general rules/ethics:

  • Try not to click someone's stuff without starting a conversation first. Coming back after being AFK and finding something different can startle people and make something that would normally be ok feel bad or alarming.
  • Soft confirm after (or before) doing something. I usually go with the the tried and true "I did XYZ, how does that make you feel?" especially when I don't know the person at all or not very well. Once you get to know a person, you can kinda intuit that squirming, blushing, gulping etc. might be signs that they approve of what you just did, but it takes a bit of time to figure that out. One persons 'gulp' might mean "That sounds awesome!" while another's might mean "I'd let you do that, but I'd really like to avoid it, or roleplay trying to avoid it."
  • Go slowly and incrementally. Don't capture a random person's collar, set their relay to auto, do all the restrictions in the list and put on all their gear from their folders. all at once. despite what some people above seem to have suggested. configuring things so that people can only do things that you like is non-trivial. maybe a person likes having their IMs taken, but doesn't like being blinded, but the menus on their stuff gives you both options. this is where the previous point comes in.

I approach this much like you, Quistess. It's not possible to work out a complete mutual consent list at the start of a relationship between two individuals capable of growth, but that's no reason to take shortcuts. I won't say slow and steady wins the race, but it's not a race. The journey is the reward.

I think most of the people here in the forums have fairly thick skins, yet we can all probably tell stories of our embarrassment over learning to change clothing. Imagine what it might be like for someone taking their first steps into letting someone under their skin, be they submissive, dominant, or... kink free.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

One is not born a submissive

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29106794/
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep10287
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23160222/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317245618_Sexual_Arousal_by_Dominance_and_Submission_Represents_Mating_Strategy

In addition, I have thirty+ years of deep conversations with people in the D/s community who, along with my partner and I, would disagree with you. We've no idea why we are the way we are, but we became aware we were different long before we understood the difference.

I hope you did your homework in pencil.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quistess Alpha said:

Perhaps I'm wrong and you can correct me, but just as a matter of defining what the categories mean, it's my understanding that all those are nested: D/s is under the umbrella of BDSM, BDSM is under the umbrella of kink. ~I would say, that (for example) a well-negotiated tie-up scene* without the emotion or power-exchange falls under BDSM (and therefore kink), but obviously not D/s. Rather technical point though.

*by which I mean, bottom asks to be tied up, top agrees, good communication throughout. I.E. just testing how things work or as a part of a workshop or something.

I suppose I've never been able to figure out just how everything fits. People pursue B without the DSM, SM without B or D, M or S without the B or Ds, or even mating S or M, Ds without S, B, or M.

And now I'm thinking of The Gateway's tagline, which seems so apropos... "DS without the BS".

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

If your standard for consent is a scripted dialog box, then that's not really submission .. and not to put too fine a point on it, misses the entire point. We're talking about BDSM as a serious relationship style, whatever you're doing, it's not that.

And that is where threads regarding BDSM always go off the rails. Lifestylers and Purists insisting that those who are more casual about it, especially in virtual, must adhere to some mysterious code of ethics that they often are not agreed on themselves but whatever it is, it certainly isn't how the casual or light D/s's view it. My point here and from the start is that the Authorization/Consent dialogue box combined with the typical collar settings is more than sufficient to meet the requirements of transparency between a Dominant and submissive.

It is my own opinion that it is the Lifestylers and Purists who are to blame for the virtual community having taken such a nosedive over the years, to a point where even those who might like to dip their toe into it, are discouraged by this crazy insistence that it is only safe to do so if one has a Masters degree in BDSM. Lifestylers and Purists need to get over themselves methinks because they are killing the golden goose that allows the curious to even try it out in a virtual safe setting.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my issue with everyone, who doesn't have a Dominant,  running around wearing a collar.  The collar in a D/s dynamic is a sign like a wedding ring.  It denotes commitment to another.  If you're unattached and just looking for some kinky bdsm fun, just wear an rlv relay.  Set it to open so anyone can grab you without asking.  Play out the scene from there.  Frankly, it's always seemed lazy to use most of the other functions in a collar.  Wouldn't it be more enjoyable for your sub to undress because you told them to instead of clicking some button on a menu?   I always chuckle when some Dom uses the chat command Kneel instead of telling their sub to kneel.  That's not how this works...that's not how any of this works.

What Arielle seems to be describing is just, as I said, kinky playtime.

Edited by Rowan Amore
  • Like 7
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Here's my issue with everyone, who doesn't have a Dominant,  running around wearing a collar.  The collar in a D/s dynamic is a sign like a wedding ring.  It denotes commitment to another.  If you're unattached and just looking for some kinky bdsm fun, just wear an rlv relay.  Set it to open so anyone can grab you without asking.  Play out the scene from there.  Frankly, it's always seemed lazy to use most of the other functions in a collar.  Wouldn't it be more enjoyable for your sub to undress because you told them to instead of clicking some button on a menu?   I always chuckle when some Dom uses the chat command Kneel instead of telling their sub to kneel.  That's now how this works...that's not how any of this works.

What Arielle seems to be describing is just, as I said, kinky playtime.

And there is nothing wrong with having kinks.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

Here's my issue with everyone, who doesn't have a Dominant,  running around wearing a collar.  The collar in a D/s dynamic is a sign like a wedding ring.  It denotes commitment to another.  If you're unattached and just looking for some kinky bdsm fun, just wear an rlv relay.  Set it to open so anyone can grab you without asking.  Play out the scene from there.  Frankly, it's always seemed lazy to use most of the other functions in a collar.  Wouldn't it be more enjoyable for your sub to undress because you told them to instead of clicking some button on a menu?   I always chuckle when some Dom uses the chat command Kneel instead of telling their sub to kneel.  That's now how this works...that's not how any of this works.

What Arielle seems to be describing is just, as I said, kinky playtime.

My collar is set to "Owner/Trust" and mainly used for people who help out with my place to be able to move my avatar when I am asleep since some things need to be managed by the owner touching or sitting on them.

 

When I go to a kinky play place I turn the relay in my collar *off* (Yes, I have access to my own collar, anyone who tried to take that away would not long be on it.) and put the DEM Relay on, not only is it *not* something that can be misinterpreted, but it will interact with RLV zones and devices at the same time, an OpenCollar relay still only connects to a single device.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

This is again a category error. As Quistess points out above, spankers and strip clothing are at most components that might be employed as part of scene, and in and of themselves are neither exclusive to, nor mean "the same" as that scene.

This is like saying that, because one usually takes one's pants off before having sex, taking off one's pants is the same thing as having sex, or necessarily means that one is going to engage in that activity.

Just because John Wick used a pencil to kill several opponents, does not mean that a pencil's main function is not that of a writing instrument. It was likely the intent of the manufacturer. In the same way, strippers might be a tool for some random person to remove my pants so I can go pee, but I suspect it was not what the Creator had in mind when scripting it. In the same way spankers could be used just because someone likes to see red shaded bums but again undoubtedly the creator intended it as a sexual and/or dominant stimulation for those so inclined. 

Quote

 

Following the logic of your argument would imply anything that was imposed upon you by a Dom(me) would, by actual definition, be a "choice" whether you liked it or not, because you've made the initial choice to "be" a sub. I might "choose" to train and get certified as a pilot: having become a pilot doesn't mean that I don't get a choice about whether I fly an airplane or not.

Choosing to be a sub (or, for that matter, being hard-wired as one) isn't the same thing as choosing to engage with a particular Dom(me), and it definitely doesn't serve as some kind of carte blanche for any Dom(me) to impose upon you, merely because you've made an initial choice to be a sub.

 

This leads me to wonder if you have actually spent any time as a sub yourself. If I am understanding what you say here correctly, then from my perspective you are making a fundamental categorical mistake in what being a submissive is about and what the payoff is for them. When I am in the submissive role, my focus and payoff is in the pleasing of the Dom/me by my obedience, regardless of whether the actual thing I am doing is pleasing to myself. So as an example, since bondage really does little for me in itself however if it is something the Dom/me likes, then I will subject myself to it. Having said that,  I do tend to shy away from those who get sexually excited at forms of bondage and sadism but on a very limited basis will engage in it. 

The point is that in my opinion, the submissive dispenses with his/her/its own interests and pleasures and instead derives pleasure in the pleasing of the dominant and thereby gets a payoff. From your analogy of a pilot, it is not whether or not I want to fly but whether my Dom/me wants to and the joy/exhilaration they experience from the flight through which I experience the same by a form of osmosis.

Quote

Fair enough, but worries me is that you are not articulating these "hidden" safeguards for consent. By omitting them, you are contributing to the vast reams of utter BS and misinformation that infects so much so-called "BDSM" and "D/s" in SL. There are a great many Dom(mes) and subs here who do fully understand the meanings and mechanics of The Lifestyle, and a great many of them, happily, are here on the forums. But you can't swing a cat in SL without hitting someone who is RPing D/s without the foggiest notion of what it actually involves, because their "research" consisted of reading 50 Shades of Grey.

Through this thread I have done more to point out the safeguards built into the collars and other RLV equipment then any other posters. You just for some reason do not seem to like it and believe the safe guards should only be in contractual stipulations between the dominant and the submissive. The problem I see with your method is that though it sounds good, it is something that is developed over time and experience.

There is also no ToS ruling whereby I have to do D/s in your or any other's particular way. I am free to do it the way I want in keeping with the guidelines my own Partner and Domme of 12+ years has laid out.

Quote

 

The larger point is that you are also still sidestepping my main criticism of your approach, which is that there is a fundamental difference between "doing something subbish" and actually being a sub. Engaging in a scene without that broader framework of explicit consent, power-exchange, and emotional involvement is kink, not BDSM or D/s.

By way of analogy . . . if I have casual one-off sex with someone I met at a club, I've engaged in the activity of having sex. I have not connected with that person meaningfully in any other way. I wouldn't say "I had a relationship last night with someone I met at a club." You shouldn't say "I was a sub for a guy I met at HBC last night" -- because you weren't.

 

Honestly I just feel you are just complicating the heck out of it to the point where most won't even bother to try it if requires living by the standards you'd like to set for the community. Being submissive happens by submitting my will to another, pure and simple. Whether or not that you agree with that is immaterial in that I do it to the standards set by my Domme, not yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

Here's my issue with everyone, who doesn't have a Dominant,  running around wearing a collar.  The collar in a D/s dynamic is a sign like a wedding ring.  It denotes commitment to another.  If you're unattached and just looking for some kinky bdsm fun, just wear an rlv relay.  Set it to open so anyone can grab you without asking.  Play out the scene from there.  Frankly, it's always seemed lazy to use most of the other functions in a collar.  Wouldn't it be more enjoyable for your sub to undress because you told them to instead of clicking some button on a menu?   I always chuckle when some Dom uses the chat command Kneel instead of telling their sub to kneel.  That's now how this works...that's not how any of this works.

What Arielle seems to be describing is just, as I said, kinky playtime.

You're right but with the D/s slant there is an extra spice to it. However I find that as the years progress, it has become increasingly rare for anyone to play with a collar to a point where I just wear it more out of a force of habit and for some outfits where I use it to cover any necklines for mismatching skins. From this thread I think I am seeing the why with the amount of judgement and condemnations from many in the community if anyone was to actually consider playing with a freelance submissive without have a signed and sealed contract of consents.

Ps- personally I love it when a Domme uses collar huds or commands to undress or pose me and in my experience, Dommes who know what they are doing, seem to like it too. It is the ones who just order by texts for me to strip that seem the lazy ones and are not really into the RP other then getting a quickie....usually males.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 130 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...