24/7 IV  (06/17/99)
   
 
    MsChiff123 wrote:
    Here's a hint for you, one that others have given but that seems to've eluded you : In D/s forum, "24/7" generally denotes a relationship in which one person is the dominant and one the submissive, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week - that it isn't a set of roles they put on and take off when they feel like it.

    Lawless wrote:
    And how many subs can afford the luxury to be submissive at work? (I'd lose my job in one day!) Or can afford to be submissive raising children?
Being submissive doesn't mean that I run around naked in collar and chains (Well, ok, I have a collar I wear every day, work or not...) kowtowing to him and calling him Master all the time. At work, he has the right to tell me to do something. (For one, he's in a higher position than I am and I am supposed to be working on his projects...) I don't run around rubbing his feet or being subservient. But then, I don't necessarily do any of that when we're *not* at work, either.

When he tells me to go fetch something, I go fetch it. If he wants a coke and is busy, he tells me to go get it. When he's at work, he's working and so am I. But the undertones are always there...and he *can* interrupt what I'm doing if he chooses to.

As for the small one at home, she is not my child, nor my responsibility to raise. *HOWEVER*, I do operate as an "aunt" to her and will correct her behavior when needed. So does Tiger's other slave who is "Nana". Being his slave doesn't mean that the child gets away with murder *or* that we are not allowed to correct said child.

The mother of the child is Tiger's submissive and wife and doesn't seem to interfere with her correcting the child, either. In fact, the child is her responsibility. (You'd have to ask Tiger about what the differences between being his submissive vs. his slave is. I'm not very clear on the concept because we all get treated pretty much equally.)
    Lawless wrote:
    And another hint, about how separate residences might not be any sign at all of people not having made adjustments in their lives to be together : a couple is in love - but one owns and cherishes her two dogs, while the other is badly allergic to them. So one moves, and gets a home just two doors down the street so they can spend as much time together as possible without the one always being ill from the pets.

    Or does the one person have to shoot her dogs to demonstrate enough "adjustments" in her life for you?

    MsChiff wrote:
    The sensible thing to do would be to 1) Take medication (like my sister does). 2) Find the dogs a loving home.
The dog *HAS* a loving home, thank you. See my response to Lawless as to why neither of those were an option. Tiger understood what kind of problems both of those would cause me, and the distress that it would put me under and decided that the adjustment would be on his family's side of things rather than on mine. If he had ordered me to get rid of the dog, I don't know what would have happened. I *probably* would have, but I would have felt that I had shirked the responsibility that *I* feel for accepting the responsibility of another living thing.

Getting rid of the dog would be tantamount to getting rid of a child, to me. The dog and the cats *are* my children. I will most likely never have a child of my own. Asking me to get rid of them would be like cutting out my heart....And that is something Tiger's just not into...