RE: Confused

RE: Confused (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

Redoubt -> RE: Confused (8/19/2007 4:29:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kyraofMists quote: ORIGINAL: Redoubt I'd define dominant behavior as exhibiting confidence, self assuredness and providing a sense of direction and purpose, in short, a leader... not a dictator, but someone you'd follow because they inspire your belief that they have a plan to reach a goal that you consider worth coming along for. This accurately describes some submissives that I know and much of it describes me. I am very good at leading when I decide to do it. It just doesn't fulfill me and it drains me of energy. quote: So having said that, how would you both define dominant and, while we're at it, submissive behavior? I do not view particular behaviors as either dominant or submissive when talking about people. I think the motivation behind the behavior will determine if it is a dominant or submissive act. My motivation is to submit to his will. When I go to work and manage my department I am doing his will and submiting. His motivation is to do his will; no matter what behavior he exhibits, he is doing his will. Behaviors are not key indicators of submission or dominance; the motivation behind those behaviors demonstrate dominance or submission. Knight's Kyra So how do you tell if the motivation is there?

Gattina -> RE: Confused (8/19/2007 6:29:44 PM)
Do you think there necesarily is a way to tell? Personally I am a socially confident, opinionated person who enjoys leading others. In the vanilla world boys who don't know me sexually often tell me I would be dominant in bed (in more or less those words). However in a sexual relationship I only want to submit. When I meet a guy I like I never dumb down my opinions or my confidence and thats caused dominants I've met to say (a bit regretfully) that they imagined me as shyer. I dont behave this way in order to challenge them, I dont want anybody to jump in and start dominating me, but because I don't want to hide who I am. For me submission follows emotional involvement, it doesnt start on the first meeting. If people stopped having a set idea of what kind of personality and behaviour a submissive displays maybe I'd have more luck getting to the emotional involvement stage.

KnightofMists -> RE: Confused (8/19/2007 7:00:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Redoubt So how do you tell if the motivation is there? It depends on the type of motivation your trying to assess. When you are talking about Dominance and Submission.. you are looking for internal motivations. In the case of Internal Motivations.. you can't tell, at least not right away. But you can ask! By asking what person's motivations.. you gain an answer. This answer in of itself provides what is the motivation. But then it becomes a question the integrity of the answer. So... the question is not how can you tell the motivation... but do you believe the person. I believe it is easier to assess the integrity of a person than it is to assess one's motivations. If one says she is a submissive my approach is not to test or assess if they are submissive. But, to assess are they a person of integrity. Once I can assess their integrity, I am able to appreciate their motivations to submit. I can view their behaviors that they say are motivated out of submission with a sense of confidence. It should be noted that just because someone says they are submissive, doesn't equate that they will neccessarily motivated to submit to me. In fact, within a relationship context, I believe that Dominant Motivated individuals have few Submissive Motivated individuals that they will connect with. And the reverse is true as well. As I said before, I see only one type of Slave... Mine. Everyone else is a person. A person who's character I will learn and assess. Some people's character I will like others I will not... their Dominant or Submissive Motivation being of little consequence to me.

Redoubt -> RE: Confused (8/20/2007 4:54:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists quote: ORIGINAL: Redoubt So how do you tell if the motivation is there? It depends on the type of motivation your trying to assess. When you are talking about Dominance and Submission.. you are looking for internal motivations. In the case of Internal Motivations.. you can't tell, at least not right away. But you can ask! By asking what person's motivations.. you gain an answer. This answer in of itself provides what is the motivation. But then it becomes a question the integrity of the answer. So... the question is not how can you tell the motivation... but do you believe the person. I believe it is easier to assess the integrity of a person than it is to assess one's motivations. If one says she is a submissive my approach is not to test or assess if they are submissive. But, to assess are they a person of integrity. Once I can assess their integrity, I am able to appreciate their motivations to submit. I can view their behaviors that they say are motivated out of submission with a sense of confidence. ... Exactly, KnightofMists - Communication. Without it we rely on perception and our perceptions can at times be very flawed. Especially as our interpretation of certain key behaviors can vary widely, but in the absence of communication, that is all we have to go on. Some just happen to be fortunate that they are more perceptive than others.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Confused (8/20/2007 10:03:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Redoubt I'd define dominant behavior as exhibiting confidence, self assuredness and providing a sense of direction and purpose, in short, a leader... not a dictator, but someone you'd follow because they inspire your belief that they have a plan to reach a goal that you consider worth coming along for. So having said that, how would you both define dominant and, while we're at it, submissive behavior? That works when you're trying to describe someones PERSONALITY. But it doesn't work at all when you're trying to describe someone's relationship ORIENTATION. And then of course, what about switches?

opensoul -> RE: Confused (8/20/2007 12:54:42 PM)
Vegas0623, Thank you for this thread, I find alot of your comments are like my own. I was in the military for 20 + years and have been told on a number times to tone it down, be more shy, not tell the way I feel and what I want and do not want. Boy , does that always burn me. I am submissive and Like you , I am also know what I want and don't want. Thankfully after alot of research into what I wanted and talking on line I have found a wonderful Master. He wants me to be openminded and understands me , better than I did. Keep looking and IMO don't settle. Good luck

Redoubt -> RE: Confused (8/20/2007 4:36:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross quote: ORIGINAL: Redoubt I'd define dominant behavior as exhibiting confidence, self assuredness and providing a sense of direction and purpose, in short, a leader... not a dictator, but someone you'd follow because they inspire your belief that they have a plan to reach a goal that you consider worth coming along for. So having said that, how would you both define dominant and, while we're at it, submissive behavior? That works when you're trying to describe someones PERSONALITY. But it doesn't work at all when you're trying to describe someone's relationship ORIENTATION. And then of course, what about switches? LA - What my perception of behavior would be, would be that... purely my perception. Asking me how my thought processes work, how my mind interprets stimuli, patterns and nuances and then forming an opinion, that is at best, insightful, and more often than not, a total S.W.A.G. would be similar to trying to download my brain onto your harddrive (we can try that if you'd like later :) ). But I imagine that it may be somewhat different from yours, and the next person, and the next person. Doesn't character influence behavior? And isn't character built by personality? One's orientation can be stated, but sometimes people don't fully know themselves, a gay man believing he is really straight would be one such example. While he asserts that he is straight, if he is exhibiting signs (wouldn't that be behavior?) that indicate that he's not (And please don't ask me to define Gay-dar) and is questioned on it, I'm sure he would react in the same way as someone being questioned if they are dominant, or submissive or not. Is it appropriate to question someone on their stated orientation? Maybe not, but sometimes feedback (no matter how much it hurts) is needed to help us grow and maybe alter some behavior that is stopping others from perceiving us correctly, and occasionally take a long hard look at ourselves and figure out what we are all about. That is of course, if you care about how you are perceived... your individual mileage may vary. If you are confident and happy in who you are, then I am glad for your happiness and your confidence. If you truly know yourself inside and out, have a totally fulfilled life, and maybe even share it with a partner/partners who you know you will stay with forever in blissful harmony, then I envy you. But for the other 98% of us, the truth is, other people's perception is their reality. The only way we can over come that is to communicate, and reflect on how our behavior may not show what and how we are feeling inside. I would also imagine that peoples behavior changes depending on who they are with, in what situation they are in, and what their mood is. However, when you are forced to rely on that behavior alone to develop an opinion, your opinion could often be very wrong. And only through questions and sharing of perceptions can you gain better data to base an opinion on. Kyra mentions that she is very capable of leading, and I am sure she is not the only submissive who is... but she would rather not. So, in a social situation with no other information to go on, if I attempt to lead, and she rejects that attempt and tries to lead herself, I can draw attempt to draw conclusions based on what I've observed: perhaps she is dominant, perhaps my style of dominance is not compatible with her (if any) desire for submission, perhaps she does perceive me as being dominant at all, or perhaps she's strong-willed and is trying to see if I will be able to reassert my leadership. Possibly none of those and something else. At the risk of sounding like a broken record... it comes down to communication, which was the message I was trying to get across all the way along. And that goes doubly so for switches, with the desire to both control and submit, depending on mood, person, situation etcetera you will probably send mixed signals most of the time if someone is not made aware of your orientation and desires prior to meeting you. In some instances, with a truly perceptive partner who picks up on both set of signals, he or she may determine right away the duality... but I would expect, less often than not would be the norm (see prior post regarding empathic partners) Absence of communication, and any clues to what you're dealing with means you have to fall back on Perception. Flawed, faulty, presumptuous, perception. I hope that does something to address your line of questioning :)

GreyGore -> RE: Confused (8/21/2007 10:07:59 AM)
The woman who now wears my collar (a fact that still delights me) had a reputation as a brat in our local community. She was also told that she might not be submissive and that she'll never perform "service", ie. she was a bottom who acted out to get beaten and not a "true submissive". Turns out that she wasn't getting what she needed. She's still playful and assertive, qualities that I enjoy and are helpful in her service to me, but she no longer acts out. Oh, and she's most definitely not a switch in any way shape or form. I recommend that you listen to your heart and not let other folks define who you are. I think you're on the right track with "I just think I need a Dom that can 'handle me' and I can respect." although I think it has less to do with "handling" you and more to do with "understanding" you. Gregory

favesclava -> RE: Confused (8/21/2007 10:11:36 AM)
Very true. i was always top because i hadnt met a man that could handle me. i always did as i wanted and was very "cocky". now i kneel with pleasure , keep my mouth shut , hardly ever curse. and i need to serve Master as much as i need to breathe. i'm 42 and for the first time in my life i am who i was meant to be. a woman who's loved , cherished, cared for , and totally dominated.

vegas0623 -> RE: Confused (8/21/2007 1:50:40 PM)
You're a very perceptive Dom, it seems you understand my post quite well and saw beyond the obvious. Yes, my soul yearns to be understood, now I just have to find the Dom that does.

KnightofMists -> RE: Confused (8/23/2007 4:02:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Redoubt Doesn't character influence behavior? .... aaaaaaaw yes!... quote: ....And isn't character built by personality?.... Most definitely NOT!!!

Redoubt -> RE: Confused (8/23/2007 5:21:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists quote: ORIGINAL: Redoubt ....And isn't character built by personality?.... Most definitely NOT!!! LOL KnightofMists (Can I shorten that to KoM?), ok so why do you disagree... remember that this is a discussion. Personally, I would put it to you that with most people, the person they are... their personality, is what drives their character and builds it over time. Character: the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing. Personality: the visible aspect of one's character as it impresses others, or in Psychology: the sum total of the physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics of an individual. The two being close in meaning, but my take - and thus my opinion only [;)] Is that Life experiences form your character and personality. Your personality once matured will only slightly change afterwards (unless some major trauma occurs), but your character will continue to develop, flesh out and evolve further over time until you die based upon your personality type... i.e built upon further. You are more than welcome to say "no it isn't" but I'd appreciate a more detailed rebuttal to understand your point further [:D]

KnightofMists -> RE: Confused (8/23/2007 5:32:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Redoubt quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists quote: ORIGINAL: Redoubt ....And isn't character built by personality?.... Most definitely NOT!!! LOL KnightofMists (Can I shorten that to KoM?), ok so why do you disagree... remember that this is a discussion. Personally, I would put it to you that with most people, the person they are... their personality, is what drives their character and builds it over time. Character: the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing. Personality: the visible aspect of one's character as it impresses others, or in Psychology: the sum total of the physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics of an individual. The two being close in meaning, but my take - and thus my opinion only [;)] Is that Life experiences form your character and personality. Your personality once matured will only slightly change afterwards (unless some major trauma occurs), but your character will continue to develop, flesh out and evolve further over time until you die based upon your personality type... i.e built upon further. You are more than welcome to say "no it isn't" but I'd appreciate a more detailed rebuttal to understand your point further [:D] first... you are referring to one specific definition of personality... which in of itself is not wrong... but not the only one. for example... "The totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behavior, that are peculiar to a specific person. " this definition alone denotes that Behaviors themselves can denote a person's personality. Behaviors that are motivated not by the character of a person... but.. their Needs, Desires (orientation)... the needs and desires of a person are not the character of a person. Thus... the premise that Character forms Personality is fundamentally flawed. Does character affect personality.. yes... but so does the internal motivations of an individual. Therefore... if personality is affected by behaviors.. can it relate that Behaviors will affect the developement of character that is unrelated to personality of the person. I believe so.. our motivations to fulfill needs and desires will result in the need to develop Character to achieve specific desires/needs. The motivation is not because of our personality... but because of one's motivation to fullfill specific needs/desires. IE.. we desire to have a fullfilling relationship.. We believe that the Character of Trust fundamental to achive our desire... so we work towards becoming a trusting person. Interestinly.... the drive to fullifll the need in building a character can infact affect our personality... therefore... character preceeds personality Secondly... you indicate that Character will evolve and grow.. I personally agree with this... So.. if Character is the underlying factor of Personality.. then it would as character evolved and grew... it would have a decided impact upon the personality of a person. In fact, it doesn't have the significant impact on personality. As you said, personality of a person is not noted to change for the most part and when it does.. it is commonly only minor changes. Because of this... it is obvious that Personality itself is not only affected by character, In fact.. huge changes of character actually can have negligible impact on personality. Maybe because, personality is affected more from other avenues.. such as experience and genetic predisposition. For example, some individuals have a genetic predisposition to depression.. this genetic aspect has significant impact upon their interactions and perspective of the world around them. As already stated, experiences will have a significant impact on the development of one's personality. Such a genetic impact doesn't even consider one's Character. In fact, the arguement can be made that this genetic affect on personality will in turn will affect the character development of a person. In other words... Personality actually preceeds Character development in some cases. In short.. I find your narrowed view to go in the face of all the conflicting ideals and thoughts that can be found within the Psychology field.... Does you idea have validity.. yes.. but not as an absolute... only as another factor in the face of personality developement. Editted to many times.. because I can't type and keep in the #)(&#(&@# enter button.. I really should write in word first and copy and paste after I am done dumping the thoughts.... mmmmmm but that sound like to much work.

Redoubt -> RE: Confused (8/23/2007 6:33:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists quote: ORIGINAL: Redoubt quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists quote: ORIGINAL: Redoubt ....And isn't character built by personality?.... Most definitely NOT!!! LOL KnightofMists (Can I shorten that to KoM?), ok so why do you disagree... remember that this is a discussion. Personally, I would put it to you that with most people, the person they are... their personality, is what drives their character and builds it over time. Character: the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing. Personality: the visible aspect of one's character as it impresses others, or in Psychology: the sum total of the physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics of an individual. The two being close in meaning, but my take - and thus my opinion only [;)] Is that Life experiences form your character and personality. Your personality once matured will only slightly change afterwards (unless some major trauma occurs), but your character will continue to develop, flesh out and evolve further over time until you die based upon your personality type... i.e built upon further. You are more than welcome to say "no it isn't" but I'd appreciate a more detailed rebuttal to understand your point further [:D] first... you are referring to one specific definition of personality... which in of itself is not wrong... but not the only one. for example... "The totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behavior, that are peculiar to a specific person. " this definition alone denotes that Behaviors themselves can denote a person's personality. Behaviors that are motivated not by the character of a person... but.. their Needs, Desires (orientation)... the needs and desires of a person are not the character of a person. Thus... you premise that Character forms Personality is fundamentally flawed. Does character affect personality.. yes... but so does the internal motivations of an individual. Secondly... you indicate that Character will evolve and grow.. I personally agree with this... So.. if Character is the underlying factor of Personality.. then it would as character evolved and grew... it would have a decided impact upon the personality of a person. In fact, it doesn't have the significant impact on personality. As you said, personality of a person is not noted to change for the most part and when it does.. it is commonly only minor changes. Because of this... it is obvious that Personality itself is not only affected by character, In fact.. huge changes of character actually can have negligible impact on personality. Maybe because, personality is affected more from other avenues.. such as experience and genetic predisposition. For example, some individuals have a genetic predisposition to depression.. this genetic aspect has significant impact upon their interactions and perspective of the world around them. As already stated, experiences will have a significant impact on the development of one's personality. Such a genetic impact doesn't even consider one's Character. In fact, the arguement can be made that this genetic affect on personality will in turn will affect the character development of a person. In other words... Personality actually preceeds Character development in some cases. In short.. I find your narrowed view to go in the face of all the conflicting ideals and thoughts that can be found within the Psychology field.... Does you idea have validity.. yes.. but not as an absolute... only as another factor in the face of personality developement. "Personality actually preceeds Character development in some cases." But isnt this what I was saying? "Thus... you premise that Character forms Personality is fundamentally flawed. Does character affect personality.. yes... but so does the internal motivations of an individual." I believe I was proposing the opposite... that Character is built by Personality. I can see how that could possibly be misinterpreted as "Personality uses Character as a foundation", but I was trying to get across that one's personality fleshes out and defines one's Character over time, thank you for allowing me to clarify. I think if you were to re-read my post, you would understand my confusion over your original response, as it appears you and I agree on a number of points. Thank you for taking the time to clarify your thoughts :)

KnightofMists -> RE: Confused (8/23/2007 6:42:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Redoubt "Personality actually preceeds Character development in some cases." But isnt this what I was saying? "Thus... you premise that Character forms Personality is fundamentally flawed. Does character affect personality.. yes... but so does the internal motivations of an individual." I believe I was proposing the opposite... that Character is built by Personality. I can see how that could possibly be misinterpreted as "Personality uses Character as a foundation", but I was trying to get across that one's personality fleshes out and defines one's Character over time, thank you for allowing me to clarify. I think if you were to re-read my post, you would understand my confusion over your original response, as it appears you and I agree on a number of points. Thank you for taking the time to clarify your thoughts :) I am just to tired to write with any depth.... the point.. is that personality affects character... But... character affects personality too but motivations affects personality as well and motivations affect character which affect personality... oh the combinations of the developement of motivations, character and personality is not so simple that some absolute can explain it all. next point.. you state one factor and convey it as the only one.... and it just isn't the case.

KnightofMists -> RE: Confused (8/23/2007 7:01:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Redoubt Exactly, KnightofMists - Communication. Without it we rely on perception and our perceptions can at times be very flawed. Especially as our interpretation of certain key behaviors can vary widely, but in the absence of communication, that is all we have to go on. Some just happen to be fortunate that they are more perceptive than others. mmmmmm well.. you do realize that Communication is only an aspect of Perception. When you communicate.. It is perception that is listening and interperting what you are saying. What I think I am saying.. is not necessarily what you are hearing. Communication in essense.. very much relies on our Perceptions! Therefore.. stating "Communication" like it some magic bullet is rather ineffective. I would prefer to have Effective Communication as compared to "Communication" Lastly.. the point of Communication is to ask to learn what is within the mindset of the person... which adds to our Perception of the situation. However, if we ineffectively communicate... our perception will actually lead us astray as we make wrong judgements and conclusiion.. In the end.. all we have is our perception... how we feed that perception is the key. As vegas has stated.. she seeks to be understood.. to be honest this is not much of a secret... since in general most individuals want two things in an intimate relationship.. To be understood and to be accepted When I am looking Understand and accept a person.. It is to work towards.. Effective Communication. since.. there is much that I don't see in the pure observation of an individual. I also appreciate.. that all the communication serves to feed the perception I have of the person. With someone that is motivated to be in a relationship with me... they have a vested interest in feeding that perception. They feed it by effectively communicating... as well as demonstration of behaviors that are positively feeding my perception. In the end... all the communication and observation of demonstrated behaviors is left to my perception..... In many ways... knowing the motivation of another.. or understanding and accepting another is like moving from here to there but only going half way with each step. In time we can get really really close.. but do we ever really get their. This is when we get to a question of Significance. We reach that point that we judge it to be significantly close enough.... so close doen't just count in horse shoes... but with relationship as well.

Tigrita -> RE: Confused (8/23/2007 7:26:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: julietsierra LOL. As I read your post, I found myself laughing with the memories you've evoked. I especially loved the one about the "frustrated sub" and "you must be a switch." My personal favorite when I was on my own was "You need to make yourself more available. Dominants LIKE submissives who are more available." My response to that was "OF COURSE I'm not available to every Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to think of himself as a dominant! There's no WAY I'd ever be available like that! If they think I'm not available, they're absolutely correct. I may love what I do but I sure as hell am not an easy lay!" Evidently he was trying to get me to be more "available" to HIM and didn't especially like my comments, so then I heard "you must not be really submissive then." I just laughed and walked away. As you can imagine, I'm VERY opinionated. However, I wasn't willing to change this about me (and honestly, I didn't think I could even if I wanted to) just to find a dominant. And know what? I didn't have to. It took a while but eventually I found someone who liked all of me - even my opinions. He liked that I could argue a point without getting loud but never wavering from what I was saying - AND that I knew enough about my opinions to back them up with supportive proofs. This appealed to him. You see, he was looking for a submissive he could actually TALK to in addition to all the other things he loved to do. And we definitely DO talk. In fact, as we've discovered over the last 5 years, my opinions are just as strong as his. The only "downside" (if you could call this a downside) is that we generally hold the same opinions. I completely understand your comment about asserting yourself if you perceive a weakness. I'm the exact same way. What's worse is that while asserting myself, I find that I lose respect for that person if they waffle too much. I don't want a lot of promises and guarantees when it comes to relationships. I want him to just DO what he said he was going to do. And I want to be held to that very same standard. The point I'm trying to make is that what you want IS out there. You just have to get past all the other people who want you to think they're the one for you. Don't compromise. Don't sell yourself short. Just keep on your path. He'll be there. juliet You totally rock! Thank you and all the others on this thread, especially the OP, for making me not feel like a freak! I feel the exact same way and have gotten very confused at all the labels here. Like subs are supposed to be nothing but easy and accomodating from start to finish, while I'm a fighter. My submission comes from a Dom proving themselves and winning me over, mentally first, and then physically, and maintaining that control, without them getting intimidated or threatened by my social strength and assertiveness. I've already been labeled a switch too, even by other subs, but I have absolutely no desire to dominate sexually, or even socially really. A vanilla guy once asked me to tie him up and I was like "you've got to be kidding". Total turn off. So I don't see how I can be considered a switch. Good luck Vegas, follow your heart and don't settle!!!!!

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125