mister-polite: A word Mr. P likes: dogI use “pet” with a good deal of frequency. It&rsqu
mister-polite: A word Mr. P likes: dogI use “pet” with a good deal of frequency. It’s a cute, round word. It’s there in “petgirl”, after all. You can call a submissive “pet” without too much fuss, and without digging too far down into the psychological mess that is a submissive’s twisted knot of wants, needs, fears, and identity.But “dog”. That’s something else.I want to use it more. It’s somehow more personal, and far more transgressive.One the one hand, a dog is man’s best friend. It’s a boon companion that’s been side by side with us for over thirty thousand years. A dog is faithful, focused, obedient, eager, interactive. Of all the creatures in all the world that we’ve ever encountered, dogs just most naturally fit alongside us.On the other hand, dog can be used as an insult in many contexts. To refer to someone as a dog is to somehow make them less, to show contempt or imply that they’re lacking.Both those reasons, in the end, are what make the word so appealing. It’s both implicative of a personal, loyal, intimate partner and yet at the same time a clear dilenation between the dominant and the submissive, a word that implies a wide gulf between them in power.It’s not an easy sell. But it’s something, long-term, that I’m quite motivated by.The photo, I think, helps sell my case. Look at her. Look at the connection between them. Does the word take away? Or does it enhance? I say it’s the later.Work hard, live hard,-Mr. P. -- source link
#puppygirl#dog collar