Unlocked collar? What that means?

[Love Zhaoying]

34 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

13 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

The comprehension error started when you assumed that the example I was thinking of in my initial post, had to do with you. It didn't.

The main subject of the thread has been consent, so I asked for an example of hypocrisy from someone here regarding that. You  offered me as an example and I found fault in that. If you actually had another example in mind, and provided me a dead red herring instead, then you're being disingenuous. Why not give the example you actually had in mind? I'm happy to hear it.

"It's got nothing to do with you,

If you can grasp it."

By coincidence, I had posted about this song on my Facebook today.

[Madelaine McMasters]

49 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

"It's got nothing to do with you,

If you can grasp it."

By coincidence, I had posted about this song on my Facebook today.

It's all about meeeeee!

Link to the song? Google's not helping today.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

9 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

That is some serious grasping for equivalency. Can AR'ing the thread be far away?

Well, false equivalency in the sense that what you generally propose is much more dangerous than peeing in the pool.

I'll explain, since you seem not to follow . . .

Not peeing in the pool is a curtailment of your "rights" on the basis of furthering the common good. Exercising your individual choice to pee in a pool in defiance of this impacts upon everyone else also in the pool.

Choosing to disregard Covid safety protocols, such as mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination, is similarly an insistence upon "your rights" that potentially impacts, and indeed endangers everyone else in your community.

Deciding that you personally find the articulation of prior consent, or the setting of bounds and limits, etc., in a D/s context annoying, "boring," and deleterious to your personal enjoyment puts those who might choose to interact with you, including a Dom(me) at risk because you are exposing them to the danger of being subsequently negligent in not obtaining prior consent. (And there are other reasons too.)

What this all comes down to, Arielle, is a marked tendency that I've seen from you over and over again to insist upon the priority of YOUR personal preferences and choices over the well-being of everyone else around you.

Basically, you don't seem to care much about anyone else.

I hope that made this clearer?

[Love Zhaoying]

3 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

It's all about meeeeee!

Link to the song? Google's not helping today.

"Up the Hill Backwards", David Bowie. 
Oops, the lyric was "One" not "You".

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Not peeing in the pool is a curtailment of your "rights" on the basis of furthering the common good. Exercising your individual choice to pee in a pool in defiance of this impacts upon everyone else also in the pool.

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

3 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

"Up the Hill Backwards", David Bowie.

Adds the song to her "Bo Diddly Beat" list while tapping her feet.

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Adds the song to her "Bo Diddly Beat" list while tapping her feet.

It the "Yeah, Yeah.."! 😹

[Love Zhaoying]

4 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I'm also happy to hear about these red flags you see. Pick away.

Stop sign! 

[Arielle Popstar]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, false equivalency in the sense that what you generally propose is much more dangerous than peeing in the pool.

I'll explain, since you seem not to follow . . .

Not peeing in the pool is a curtailment of your "rights" on the basis of furthering the common good. Exercising your individual choice to pee in a pool in defiance of this impacts upon everyone else also in the pool.

Choosing to disregard Covid safety protocols, such as mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination, is similarly an insistence upon "your rights" that potentially impacts, and indeed endangers everyone else in your community.

Deciding that you personally find the articulation of prior consent, or the setting of bounds and limits, etc., in a D/s context annoying, "boring," and deleterious to your personal enjoyment puts those who might choose to interact with you, including a Dom(me) at risk because you are exposing them to the danger of being subsequently negligent in not obtaining prior consent. (And there are other reasons too.)

What this all comes down to, Arielle, is a marked tendency that I've seen from you over and over again to insist upon the priority of YOUR personal preferences and choices over the well-being of everyone else around you.

Basically, you don't seem to care much about anyone else.

I hope that made this clearer?

Well now that you have articulated your assumptions, I understand why it was I didn't see the equivalency as I am not guilty of the majority of what you accuse me of. Leaving the off-topic covid misinformation aside, I will reiterate my opinion as a submissive that the collar permission settings and the authorization boxes requesting access to my viewer inputs, is a sufficient explicit consent to qualify for the verbal or written consents talked about in the page you linked. 

As a little background so you and your clique have a clearer understanding of where I was coming from in my post to Gabriel, I have been a sub to the same Miss/Domme/partner for 12+ years in a relationship where I was required to mostly have an Open to the Public collar setting and could play with any that hooked my collar as long as it was no more then once or twice with any particular Dom/me and only if she was offline. I know of more then a few other subs who have or had a similar injunction with their Dom/me's. As such, it was not a wild suggestion that if Gabriel found someone with an open or public collar, he could play with it. I also previously mentioned the Community Doll groups which I belonged to (still do) who as a group, belong to the S/L community at large and where the idea is that as Dolls, we are to be helpful to any who might want to learn about what it is like to be a dominant and wanted to practice on us. You can see the Group's philosophy here: http://www.communitydolls.com/philosophy.htm. 

From those, you might understand that it was never an intent to be in any sort of long term D/s relationship with anyone other then my Miss/partner and as such, some of what you all describe as being the sort of relationship you think to be proper, is just not relevant for ones such as myself. Like seriously, who asks a Doll if they consent to be played with? It is their function.

What this all comes down to, Scylla, is a marked tendency that I've seen from you to misunderstand anything outside of your own experience and insist upon the priority of YOUR personal preferences and choices over those of anyone else.

I hope that made this clearer?

[Love Zhaoying]

10 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

What this all comes down to, Scylla, is a marked tendency that I've seen from you to misunderstand anything outside of your own experience and insist upon the priority of YOUR personal preferences and choices over those of anyone else.

Wait, isn't that what Scylla said about you? Best.Argument.Ever.

[Madelaine McMasters]

2 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I will reiterate my opinion as a submissive that the collar permission settings and the authorization boxes requesting access to my viewer inputs, is a sufficient explicit consent to qualify for the verbal or written consents talked about in the page you linked. 

And I'll reiterate my opinion that you're wrong.

2 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I have been a sub to the same Miss/Domme/partner for 12+ years in a relationship where I was required to mostly have an Open to the Public collar setting and could play with any that hooked my collar as long as it was no more then once or twice with any particular Dom/me and only if she was offline. I know of more then a few other subs who have or had a similar injunction with their Dom/me's. As such, it was not a wild suggestion that if Gabriel found someone with an open or public collar, he could play with it.

So, because a few people treat their their open collars as explicit consent, it's okay for anyone (Gabriel) to presume all collar wearers do? My partner initially treated her open collar as an indication of interest, and an invitation to engage and obtain consent. That invitation was so often abused that she was forced to close it, (as were you) because people who treated their open collars as explicit consent had corrupted the indication.

2 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

From those, you might understand that it was never an intent to be in any sort of long term D/s relationship with anyone other then my Miss/partner and as such, some of what you all describe as being the sort of relationship you think to be proper, is just not relevant for ones such as myself.

What does the nature of your relationship with your Domme have to do with the expectations you set for others by treating your open collar as explicit consent? Strangers are completely unaware of your background when they click the collar.
 

2 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Like seriously, who asks a Doll if they consent to be played with? It is their function.

From the Community Doll Philosophy you linked: "We are not reaching out to experienced dominants. We are trying to reach your normal SL people. They can enjoy control. We try to make that as easy for them as possible."

If these dolls are out in public, treating their look as explicit consent, they are distorting the expectations of "normal SL people" to the potential detriment of anyone who looks like a doll, and anyone who thinks they've learned how consent works by interacting with one. I don't really get the impression that's what the Community Dolls intend (the philosophy is neither well thought out nor well written), but that's what you are doing.

I see your use of an open collar as a troubling corruption of the Handkerchief code, which is used to indicate interest, not consent. You'll not find "consent" mentioned on that page. You will find it mentioned on this page, from which I quote:
"Flagging isn’t a way to bypass consent. I feel like that should go without saying but I am saying it anyway!"

2 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I hope that made this clearer?

It did.

Edited February 26, 2022 by Madelaine McMasters
Added the link behind "this page".

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

2 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I hope that made this clearer?

It did.

*in gangster voice* Hey, Doll!

[Coffee Pancake]

The SL kink scene in 3 easy steps.

1. Get all dressed up ready for bed / adventure / etc.
2. Wear all your RLV toys and leave the keys on (if possible lock yourself out of the menus).
3. Stand about kink places in SL and hope someone happens to you.

Advanced steps for the seasoned shiny. 

1. Complain about fuddy duddy bdsm peeps for wanting to talk first
2. Resent any notion of actual fidelity if ever brought up
3. Only play with sex similar partners, yet somehow manage to be weirdly homophobic / transphobic
4. Refuse to participate in groups socially when a domme is around
5. Wait your turn. It's your turn soon. You deserve the best turn for all the waiting you did.

And then wonder where all the actual dominants have gone ... 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Coffee Pancake

[Solar Legion]

On 2/24/2022 at 4:35 PM, Madelaine McMasters said:

My partner handed over more control than I was willing to take.

That is ... pretty much what happened some time after I first joined Second Life and spent a fair bit of time with an old friend and RP partner from my chat room days.

We gave a relationship a go, even went into BDSM (which we were both into varied aspects of prior) and ... Well, she wanted to be micro-managed. I am not comfortable with that in the slightest - not even after so many years after she's left SL and I've gone on to other things/relationships.

On the broader topic that has been discussed: I'm a Switch myself and these days almost constantly wear a collar - one that is explicitly set much of the time to "Ask" mode or with the RLV functions off if I am not in certain moods. There are only two Owners listed in the collar - myself and my Mate. Anyone else that could end up being granted access will have less control (using the "Trust" as opposed to "Owner" category) and on a temporary basis unless I and my Mate properly trust them (which reminds me, I need to add one such person permanently into that list).

As far as the entire mouse click vs. text description "debate" goes? There's no debate from where I stand. Clicks are good for quick scenes and such. Description is good for extended scenes and further immersion. That's it - nothing else matters or is otherwise meaningful.

[colleen Criss]

I'm not getting any of this time back am I?

[Rowan Amore]

1 minute ago, colleen Criss said:

I'm not getting any of this time back am I?

Nope.  The question was answered on page one.

[Silent Mistwalker]

On 2/22/2022 at 1:10 PM, Love Zhaoying said:

I was thinking about roller skates and keys!

 

[Silent Mistwalker]

On 2/23/2022 at 9:14 AM, Coffee Pancake said:

Click me harder daddy.

That made me laugh so hard. 

Now I want a cigarette.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

6 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Like seriously, who asks a Doll if they consent to be played with? It is their function.

It is rather alarming to have to ask this question, but . . .

. . . you DO realize that you are not, actually, a "Doll," right?

I mean, that you are a sentient person with free will and all, who is RPing being a doll for the duration of a particular Scene with one or more other people?

This may seem a subtle distinction to you, but it's an important one. The consent of the "Doll" you are playing is not required, because she is not real. YOUR consent, and equally the consent of the person playing with you, is, because you both are real people, with free will, and to whom real harms might ensue in the course of the Scene.

Dollification is a reasonably well known and not uncommon sub-genre, so to speak, of D/s and BDSM. It falls solidly within the parameters of those fields, and prior consent, safe words, etc., etc., are still an absolutely necessary part of how it works.

As for the "Community Doll Philosophy," I just want to underline what Maddy has already said: interacting as "Dolls" with "normal people" who quite possibly have next to no understanding of even the basic fundamentals of D/s and BDSM is quite simply insane. Apart from the fact that it's a recipe for misunderstandings, abuse, drama, and god knows what else, it is also communicating an absolutely false notion of how D/s actually works.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

8 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I hope that made this clearer?

Clear as the mud clams live in...

[Love Zhaoying]

6 hours ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

On 2/23/2022 at 12:14 PM, Coffee Pancake said:

Click me harder daddy.

That made me laugh so hard. 

Now I want a cigarette.

Now I'm all choked up!

[Love Zhaoying]

9 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

 

. . . you DO realize that you are not, actually, a "Doll," right?

I mean, that you are a sentient person with free will and all, who is RPing being a doll for the duration of a particular Scene with one or more other people?

A bold assumption!

[Madelaine McMasters]

17 hours ago, Solar Legion said:

On 2/24/2022 at 3:35 PM, Madelaine McMasters said:

My partner handed over more control than I was willing to take.

That is ... pretty much what happened some time after I first joined Second Life and spent a fair bit of time with an old friend and RP partner from my chat room days.

We gave a relationship a go, even went into BDSM (which we were both into varied aspects of prior) and ... Well, she wanted to be micro-managed. I am not comfortable with that in the slightest - not even after so many years after she's left SL and I've gone on to other things/relationships.

Solar, micro-managing would drive me nuts, too. There's none of that in our relationship. She simply became comfortable with me faster than I became comfortable with living the shared fantasy that drew and keeps us together.

I have her explicit consent coming out of my ears, but I'm ever mindful of the world around us. That world is largely imagined, so that we can effortlessly obtain explicit consent from its inhabitants, consent to have them appreciate or even applaud us and, for those who wont... to set them on fire, run over them, or toss them through windows.

To the extent I bring my partner outside that imagined world into the wilds of SL, I try to ensure we're unseen, or in places where we (particularly she) will be appreciated, or even applauded.

[Lindal Kidd]

On 2/25/2022 at 6:59 PM, Madelaine McMasters said:

If these dolls are out in public, treating their look as explicit consent, they are distorting the expectations of "normal SL people" to the potential detriment of anyone who looks like a doll, and anyone who thinks they've learned how consent works by interacting with one.

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 hour ago, Lindal Kidd said:

 

That's not an uncommon reaction from a sub who's been grabbed without consent. My partner is from NYC and can happily out curse me, as she did once during our early days, when accosted by an asshat. I've wondered if some Dom/mes keep their subs quiet to avoid the verbal conflagrations that would ensue if they get hit on. None of this would happen, of course, if everyone asked first.