Sigh...

[Shilo66]

1 hour ago, ThaliaV said:

So this post doesn't apply to you, since it's specifically directed at those who identify as a Daddy type

Interesting comment, because last I checked, this is a public forum so anyone can respond. And, if you were to apply the same logic that you're using on others to yourself, then why are you commenting when you are clearly NOT a Daddy either?

@leanneandmartin - you are very much a splendid breath of fresh air, and, your posts are very much on point. Thank you. 

Edited July 25 by Shilo66

[Deleted Member]

20 minutes ago, Remy83 said:

@leean i re read this and I am not seeing anywhere that directed this to your specific daddy. I believe the intention is that of addressing those who actually shame your daddy by being that abusive and unfulfilling role to the specific dynamic the agreed to and participate in. So don’t take any of this discussion as a directly targeting yours.

The post I feel sets up for immediate failed interactions when one side (bgs) are entering believing there should be along preset list the daddy must automatically meet and if they don't they lack in some area at best and as other commenters called them at worst 'abusive'. And the daddy is operating within his own legitimate preferences. By giving info to new bgs like that you not only silence the ones like me who don't like that approach at all but you send the rest running from daddies who don't want to in my opinion coddle bgs. This inturn takes away sexual kink happiness from lots of people and no matter how anyone prases it that's not ok

[Deleted Member]

21 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

They will. It's what this profile pops up and does from time to time. We can either chose to ignore it or engage, their comments will become more antagonistic as the thread progresses and at some point a Mod will step in.

😂

[Re****]

I will put this final statement here. For those with the mindset that there is only one way to do things such as lee and now shilo seem to agree, you are the gatekeeprs of the community, perhaps even the very ones that this post is generated from. And, the very reason for someone such as myself to have to see the broken pieces left behind your wakes because you even injected that my way only way mindset into the submissives is see damaged and confuse. Ruining their experiences and exploration. It is indeed a public forum, so thank you for entering it and just proving the original topic valid.

[Th****]

15 minutes ago, leanneandmartin said:

I am thankful that your definition of dom wasn't male specific.

Dominant and submissive are inherently neutral terms on their own. 

[Th****]

13 minutes ago, Shilo66 said:

Interesting comment, because last I checked, this is a public forum so anyone can respond. And, if you were to apply the same logic that you're using on others to yourself, then why are you commenting when you are clearly NOT a Daddy either?

@leanneandmartin - you are very much a splendid breath of fresh air, and, your posts are very much on point. Thank you. 

The difference is I'm not responding as if it applies to me. So the same logic can't apply. 

[Deleted Member]

40 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

There are over 500 species within the order of primates. I'd like to think that you wouldn't have chosen to use the words "in the primates studies and many other ***s out there" if you meant humans alone.
.
It doesn't need to be mentioned at all primarily because it's not factual. I'm unsure what studies you've been reading on primates, but having worked with a various species within the sub orders or prosimians, monkeys and apes for 6+yrs I never saw one kneel out of deference or any other behaviour come to that. Perhaps you could cite some of them for me, I'd love to read them 👍

This was my exact statement.
'Since the beginning of humankind aswell as religion, duty to state, in the primates studies and many other ***s out there it is universal that to kneel was to submit, you kneel to the king, you kneel to fatal danger, you kneel to the alpha etc etc.'
The only mistake I seem to have made here is the adsence of ' /lower body position immediately after kneel because I don't have time to proof check my grammar for the petty.
If you so desperately wish for the studies take any human behavioural study that directly observes dominance in body language vs submission. I'll remind you one more time as to waste no more of my own with yourself, we human are primates. There are thousands of studies on humans interactional behaviours in this meaning there are thousands of primate studys on it. 6+ years around 500+ species copperknob and you forgot your own. Time will spent

[CopperKnob]

1 minute ago, leanneandmartin said:

This was my exact statement.
'Since the beginning of humankind aswell as religion, duty to state, in the primates studies and many other ***s out there it is universal that to kneel was to submit, you kneel to the king, you kneel to fatal danger, you kneel to the alpha etc etc.'
The only mistake I seem to have made here is the adsence of ' /lower body position immediately after kneel because I don't have time to proof check my grammar for the petty.
If you so desperately wish for the studies take any human behavioural study that directly observes dominance in body language vs submission. I'll remind you one more time as to waste no more of my own with yourself, we human are primates. There are thousands of studies on humans interactional behaviours in this meaning there are thousands of primate studys on it. 6+ years around 500+ species copperknob and you forgot your own. Time will spent

Yeah. I guess we can both troll hey? 😚

[Shilo66]

26 minutes ago, Remy83 said:

I will put this final statement here. For those with the mindset that there is only one way to do things such as lee and now shilo seem to agree, you are the gatekeeprs of the community, perhaps even the very ones that this post is generated from. And, the very reason for someone such as myself to have to see the broken pieces left behind your wakes because you even injected that my way only way mindset into the submissives is see damaged and confuse. Ruining their experiences and exploration. It is indeed a public forum, so thank you for entering it and just proving the original topic valid.

This is my track record of helping to keep women safe on this forum:

1- I actively tell women that if they've been ***ed that they should report such ***s to the relevant authorities - some of the women you side with, have actively argued against reporting such ***s.... there are forum threads to prove this.

2 - I told people on here about 'Clare's Law' - This is a UK law that enables anyone (namely women) to check if their current or ex partner (namely men) have/has a history of domestic ***  - some of the women you side with, have actively argued against this... again, there are forum threads to prove this.

3 - I told people on here about the message filtering facility that will enable them (namely women) to be able to reduce the number of unsolicited 'd*ck pics' that they receive... and guess what?... yeah, you guessed it, some of the women you side with, have actively argued against this too!... and, there's a forum thread to prove this also. 

There's more, but these three examples of how "uncaring" I am is enough for now, LOL.

You have to realise, that there are some people on here whose fetish is purely to 'Man-bash' and every time a step or solution has been found to make things a little easier or better for women, they always oppose them.

Edited July 25 by Shilo66

[Th****]

27 minutes ago, leanneandmartin said:

The post I feel sets up for immediate failed interactions when one side (bgs) are entering believing there should be along preset list the daddy must automatically meet and if they don't they lack in some area at best and as other commenters called them at worst 'abusive'. And the daddy is operating within his own legitimate preferences. By giving info to new bgs like that you not only silence the ones like me who don't like that approach at all but you send the rest running from daddies who don't want to in my opinion coddle bgs. This inturn takes away sexual kink happiness from lots of people and no matter how anyone prases it that's not ok

How, exactly does the following "set up for immediate failed interactions"? 

"Did you make them feel safe, heard, respected?
Did you go over limits?
Did you discuss the aftercare policy?
Did you get background information besides their sex preferences?
Or did you think all your sub needed was D?"

What type of Daddy or even Dominant for that matter would these things not apply to? With the exception of course that it's apparently directed at people attached to a penis, however one could also interpret it as meaning sex in general. 

I can't think of any dynamic where these things wouldn't apply, so find it quite the stretch that you could view any of this in any way "coddling" or undesirable. 

This is bare minimum stuff. New s types absolutely should expect these things, regardless of what s type role they claim and babygirls aren't the only s type who seek a Daddy and not all Daddies seek baby girls. Really, everyone on *both* sIdes of the slash should expect these things. 

[CopperKnob]

11 minutes ago, Shilo66 said:

This is my track record of helping to keep women safe on this forum:

1- I actively tell women that if they've been ***ed that they should report such ***s to the relevant authorities - some of the women you side with, have actively argued against reporting such ***s.... there are forum threads to prove this.

2 - I told people on here about 'Clare's Law' - This is a UK law that enables anyone (namely women) to check if their current or ex partner (namely men) have/has a history of domestic ***  - some of the women you side with, have actively argued against this... again, there are forum threads to prove this.

3 - I told people on here about the message filtering facility that will enable them (namely women) to be able to reduce the number of unsolicited 'd*ck pics' that they receive... and guess what?... yeah, you guessed it, some of the women you side with, have actively argued against this too!... and, there's a forum thread to prove this also. 

There's more, but these three examples of how "uncaring" I am is enough for now, LOL.

You have to realise, that there are some people on here whose fetish is purely to 'Man-bash' and every time a step or solution has been found to make things a little easier or better for women, they always oppose them.

1. I'm guessing you have no experience of encountering the judicial system having experienced sexual *** and that, in doing so, retraumatises them. By telling those who have such experiences to report places the burden of accountability for another's behaviour on them.
.
2. Clara's Law wouldn't need to be a necessity if men (and other genders) behaved appropriately. Additionally, information isn't always disclosed to those requesting it under Clares Law. At times incorrect information is shared providing the individuals a false sense of security. The Police are often at fault for not informing individuals experiencing *** including controlling/coercive behaviour about Clares Law to enable them to make informed decisions about utilising it. It also only exists in specific areas.
.
3. Again, people should not need to adjust their own behaviour for the others in order to keep themselves safe. Instead of harping on about what people ("namely women") should do, why not focus on challenging the poor behaviour of others? Because "you have to realise" that's the only way to address the situation and, in order to bring it back to the OP, that's exactly what the OP has attempted to do only for others to "bash" them for doing so.

[Deleted Member]

53 minutes ago, ThaliaV said:

I'd ask for you to take a breath (or several) maybe even step away from the conversation for a while and return when your feelings aren't so high. You really appear to have completely read your own interpretation of what the OP is trying to say based on your own personal feelings and seem to be reacting instead of responding. It's also quite ironic that you're so vehement about someone not speaking for others yet you keep doing exactly that with everything you keep saying about how things are and/or should be. 

Not everyone who uses the title or honorific of "Daddy" actually ascribes to the *role* of Daddy or Daddy Dom, they aren't synonymous. Being a Dom who simply likes the honorific of Daddy is totally fine and there's nothing wrong with that, but things need to be made clear. There are also different categories of Daddies, one can be an authoritative disciplinarian where another can be nurturing and even indulgent of they wish. This is why clear communication and negotiations are so important. If the negative behaviors described in the OP don't apply to your partner then the post isn't about him. Nowhere does anyone say "all men" or "all Daddies" the op even very specifically says "some". Negative *behaviors* is what's being discussed here, again, your comments contsin more "bashing" than anyone else's and the poor behavior of some women doesn't have any bearing on the topic at hand, it's deflection. If you want to discuss women behaving badly go to a post specifically about that or start a new one. Both things can and do exist, one doesn't negate the presence of the other. 

Additionally... there *are* other roles and archetypes besides babygirls who seek Daddies you know, right? Some of your comments come really close to kink shaming of littles and middles. 

You need to read my other replies, I mentioned communication is important, pandering and coddling isn't. I am deflecting nothing, if the title of daddy is present within your dynamic, if you receive pleasure hearing those words on your ears it includes you and in that case both men and woman of that title should be addressed.
I am as careful as I can be with the choice of my words and that's why no little or middle should take offensive from what iv said. Again there are a few comments iv made I feel you've missed. But it is hard keeping track of things im struggling myself aswell

[Se****]

2 hours ago, ThaliaV said:

So this post doesn't apply to you, since it's specifically directed at those who identify as a Daddy type, then does it? 

I’m presuming the post you were replying to with this related more to a medical procedure regarding procreation and was said in a “tongue in cheek” kinda way as opposed to referencing being a Daddy in the kink sense. Although, I could be wrong x

[Shilo66]

1 hour ago, CopperKnob said:

1. I'm guessing you have no experience of encountering the judicial system having experienced sexual *** and that, in doing so, retraumatises them. By telling those who have such experiences to report places the burden of accountability for another's behaviour on them.
.
2. Clara's Law wouldn't need to be a necessity if men (and other genders) behaved appropriately. Additionally, information isn't always disclosed to those requesting it under Clares Law. At times incorrect information is shared providing the individuals a false sense of security. The Police are often at fault for not informing individuals experiencing *** including controlling/coercive behaviour about Clares Law to enable them to make informed decisions about utilising it. It also only exists in specific areas.
.
3. Again, people should not need to adjust their own behaviour for the others in order to keep themselves safe. Instead of harping on about what people ("namely women") should do, why not focus on challenging the poor behaviour of others? Because "you have to realise" that's the only way to address the situation and, in order to bring it back to the OP, that's exactly what the OP has attempted to do only for others to "bash" them for doing so.

LOL... priceless yet again.

Thanks for proving my point mentioned earlier.... LOL... could, not, make, this, up.

So, let's take your points in reverse:

3) - People use message filtering to restrict the age range of the people they want to respond to them.

      They also use it to restrict the geographical range of the people they want to respond to them.

      So, why shouldn't they use it to reduce the number of unsolicited d*ck picks that they (namely women) get? 

      Especially with regards to what YOU said earlier....     

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The thing is, these types of D's are an ever present constant.

Trying to educate is a pointless task. I used to try and, drom time to time, i may still make a comment on a thread like this. But, you can't talk predatory behaviours out of ***rs. It isn't ignorance, it's contempt.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, if educating them is pointless, then surely, you should do all you can to protect yourself from them?.... no?

Of course, if you don't want to use this filtering facility, no one is forcing you, but you shouldn't try to stop or discourage others from doing so. 

 

2) - Clare's Law only works because some brave previous victim reported the perpetrator,  hence there is a register of them so it can work, thereby potentially protecting future victims from ***. The reason so many perpetrators get away with ***s is because of lack of reporting.  If the necessary authorities don't know that fiend exists, how are they supposed to act against them????.... by use of wishful thinking and ***ring into crystal balls???

 

1) Regarding point 1. You clearly do not know what you're talking about, in previous threads I've raised points regarding the judiciary that show I have some knowledge of the system, hence why I know about, for example, Clare's law, and you didn't, until I raised it here. 

 

When someone constantly man-bashes and derides every step and measure, no matter how small it may be, that makes a community safer, it is pretty obvious that they do not want the community to be safer, because they ***  it will mean that they will have less of a voice - especially when they've already complained that people aren't listening to them. It's the same when they oppose others of the same gender as their own, simply because that other woman speaks sense and truth, and has a different opinion. They try to tar them with the 'antagonistic brush'.

Whatever happened to listening to the opinions of others?... or does that only apply when they coincide with thine own?... LOL, LOL

 

 

  

Edited July 25 by Shilo66

[Deleted Member]

Thank you, everyone, for your comments! My point was to open the topic up for discussion, especially those new in the lifestyle! I love observing & and learning from others as they respond, regardless of whether their point of view aligns with mine or not! Daddy, for me, is a gender neutral term, FYI! Great stuff. Thank you for taking the time to join the discussion! ❤️💋

[Re****]

11 minutes ago, NightMother said:

Thank you, everyone, for your comments! My point was to open the topic up for discussion, especially those new in the lifestyle! I love observing & and learning from others as they respond, regardless of whether their point of view aligns with mine or not! Daddy, for me, is a gender neutral term, FYI! Great stuff. Thank you for taking the time to join the discussion! ❤️💋

Thank you for opening the original intended thread.

[CopperKnob]

26 minutes ago, Shilo66 said:

LOL... priceless yet again.

Thanks for proving my point mentioned earlier.... LOL... could, not, make, this, up.

So, let's take your points in reverse:

3) - People use message filtering to restrict the age range of the people they want to respond to them.

      They also use it to restrict the geographical range of the people they want to respond to them.

      So, why shouldn't they use it to reduce the number of unsolicited d*ck picks that they (namely women) get? 

      Especially with regards to what YOU said earlier....     

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The thing is, these types of D's are an ever present constant.

Trying to educate is a pointless task. I used to try and, drom time to time, i may still make a comment on a thread like this. But, you can't talk predatory behaviours out of ***rs. It isn't ignorance, it's contempt.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, if educating them is pointless, then surely, you should do all you can to protect yourself from them?.... no?

Of course, if you don't want to use this filtering facility, no one is forcing you, but you shouldn't try to stop or discourage others from doing so. 

 

2) - Clare's Law only works because some brave previous victim reported the perpetrator,  hence there is a register of them so it can work, thereby potentially protecting future victims from ***. The reason so many perpetrators get away with ***s is because of lack of reporting.  If the necessary authorities don't know that fiend exists, how are they supposed to act against them????.... by use of wishful thinking and ***ring into crystal balls???

 

1) Regarding point 1. You clearly do not know what you're talking about, in previous threads I've raised points regarding the judiciary that show I have some knowledge of the system, hence why I know about, for example, Clare's law, and you didn't, until I raised it here. 

 

When someone constantly man-bashes and derides every step and measure, no matter how small it may be, that makes a community safer, it is pretty obvious that they do not want the community to be safer, because they ***  it will mean that they will have less of a voice - especially when they've already complained that people aren't listening to them. It's the same when they oppose others of the same gender as their own, simply because that other woman speaks sense and truth, and has a different opinion. They try to tar them with the 'antagonistic brush'.

Whatever happened to listening to the opinions of others?... or does that only apply when they coincide with thine own?... LOL, LOL

 

 

  

Dude, I work with both victims and perpetrators of domestic *** 🙄
.
Its odd isn't it how women who call themselves feminists are accused of being man bashers/man haters.
And yet, when a man kills a women, they're called mentally unwell or a madman rather than a woman hater or misogynist.
.
Women don't need men pretending to protect us by telling us what to do. We need men to stop protecting each other by telling women what to do. (Maybe read this one twice.)
.
It's exactly what the patriarchy has been doing to us and other marginalised genders for years.
.
If the "safety nets" on the Internet such as Fets message filters or Clares Law were actually effective, what reason can we attribute to the rising statistics of women experiencing *** at the hands of men?
.
Men who have such contempt for women fail to listen to us and that's why it's fruitless in us attempting to educate them. You, yourself have evidenced that countless times. The threads are there to "prove it"

[Shilo66]

42 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

If the "safety nets" on the Internet such as Fets message filters or Clares Law were actually effective, what reason can we attribute to the rising statistics of women experiencing *** at the hands of men?
 

People who are capable of joined-up thinking, can see the direct correlation between the above statement and mine below. Those who aren't, will obviously struggle.

1 hour ago, Shilo66 said:

- The reason so many perpetrators get away with ***s is because of lack of reporting.  If the necessary authorities don't know that fiend exists, how are they supposed to act against them????.... by use of wishful thinking and ***ring into crystal balls???

Cogent thinking is clearly not some peoples strong point. 

Edited July 25 by Shilo66

[dominionhub]

7 hours ago, CopperKnob said:

There are over 500 species within the order of primates. I'd like to think that you wouldn't have chosen to use the words "in the primates studies and many other ***s out there" if you meant humans alone.
.
It doesn't need to be mentioned at all primarily because it's not factual. I'm unsure what studies you've been reading on primates, but having worked with a various species within the sub orders or prosimians, monkeys and apes for 6+yrs I never saw one kneel out of deference or any other behaviour come to that. Perhaps you could cite some of them for me, I'd love to read them 👍

Copper, I sent you a message. Would it be possible to talk about a few points in this reply? (I would not want to derail this thread, but you reference a topic I am interested in offline.)

-best,
Hub

[dominionhub]

It looks like the original post is referencing Dom's that over-step limits (agreed or implied).

Not sure if it is unique to male doms. Similarly, how often are the questions in the post asked? (Do not say the question should be asked. How often are the questions asked and answers agreed?)

Of course, mis-communication does not justify *** or intentional brutality.

[Re****]

5 hours ago, Shilo66 said:

Cogent thinking is clearly not some peoples strong point. 

But it is mine, and reading through Im sorry I dont grasp your complex of feeling a good deed done by providing others with information rather that could converse properly about a topic here and addressing the root of the problem at its core. You mention who I side with yet no one here has a vendetta to bash men in general. Re read. It simply has not happened. The only aggressive behavior here was generated by Leann and yourself. Prior, it was a conversation that could have been conducive of education, healing, and growth for those unseasoned in the lifestyle it is literally tagged for newcomers. We were attempting to openly discuss a situation to address a problem rather than just provide a bandaid after the damage is done.

[Re****]

If you cant list the ways you help in vast quantity. Lets move prevention to the top of said list. I appreciate your efforts in assisting others affected, but head off the snake is the only way the cycle stops.

[Re****]

CAN list*

[ab****]

I had a daddy who wanted one thing and then blocked me when he couldn’t get it, it sucks that it’s so hard to find a daddy who will respect and make me feel safe I still have yet to find one

[CopperKnob]

4 hours ago, dominionhub said:

Copper, I sent you a message. Would it be possible to talk about a few points in this reply? (I would not want to derail this thread, but you reference a topic I am interested in offline.)

-best,
Hub

In terms of primates kneeling? I don't believe their physiology allows them to, even the bi-peds. May be wrong but I've certainly never witnessed it.
Primates don't relate to kink etc in any way, bonobos, maybe the closest but not really.