quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

My second question is, why would the thread be started to help people (the OP or others) with their SELF-esteem?  Doesn't the very definition of the word imply that is something that has to be built within the self?  Just in My personal opinion, the fishing for anyone to expound how wonderful a person is doesn't hold a candle to those comments made without such proding.  I'd rather hear something from the heart.

 

 
That's a good question I haven't seen asked before.
 
Self-esteem is about the way in which we look at ourselves. Those with low self-esteem were taught to view themselves as unworthy of love, attention, trust, companionship ...

Improving self-esteem is about bringing to the surface aspects of the individual which have been suppressed so as to achieve the skewed view of one's worth.

Those I have helped have been good and kind people, loving and thoughful. They just didn't think these things counted for anything, and so they suffered from low self-esteem.

By showing them how all of these things matter, they achieved a healthier, more balanced sense of self-worth.

But that's only part of the process. The other part is helping them listen to themselves more than they listen to others about their own self-worth. It isn't enough for them to believe these qualities have value just because I think they have value. They need to see the intrinsic value in these qualities for themselves, at all times.

Once that has been achieved, they enjoy a healthier self-esteem and are more immune to the ego-driven who would take that away from them.

quote:

 
My third and final question is, in the seven pages that this has gone to, has anyone learned anything?

And who would you have speak for the silent majority (nodding in the direction of the audience at large)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened
Could it simply be a case of sending out negative energy and getting a negative response?  You can't yell "SHIT" into the Grand Canyon and expect the echo to come back "sugar".

quote:

ORIGINAL: xoxi

LOL

No a *large* milkshake has 800.  A small has 500 or so 

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

I appreciate the response, however, at My first reading, it seemed to imply that a person must rely on another person to improve their self worth/esteem, which I don't find to be the case.  If it were so, the 'self-help' section of the literary circle would not exist.  This goes into a whole different catagory of does a person feel they are worth less when they are not partnered in some fashion.  In this day and age, anyone with drive to learn something new, or unlearn something old, need not rely on someone else to point out resources.
 
There are many reasons out there for a person to want to be in a relationship.  They aren't all necessarily good ones.  While the "I want to share My life with someone" example hasn't had the overall expression that I would hope it would have, I have heard some others.  While I mean no offense to the OP or anyone else, "Looking for a sperm donor" and "I want someone to validate my worth" come to mind.  Before anyone gets out of join, remember, it's a forum and some people are going to hear things that might not have been intended. 
 
While outside influences can add or detract to a person's self esteem, I still believe it is a work that needs to be done within a person's self.  Nobody is brainwashing anyone here, and outside comments about a person forces them to believe anything they don't about themselves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

What I find most interesting about this thread is the way you chose to ignore those earlier comments made by myself and others attempting to explain in a serious manner how we view things and that, while I don't agree with those dominants who base their attraction to submissives purely on their looks, I do feel it is THEIR right to do so.  Shallow?  Maybe...or maybe they have dealt with large women all their life and now want one who has a "storybook" figure.  But if you call that shallow, then would you not also have to call the male dominant who wants ONLY a BBW as his submissive, at the expense of the "storybook-figured" ones shallow also?

quote:


As for you Bob, once again you sweep in and urge on confrontation rather than just answering the OP.  You speak of the one you seek...how far are you getting in that with your swooping-in-to-save act while at the same time, starting threads denigrating those of us who believe in things you don't believe in WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, you post broadly and ever so graciously about how it is the right of any D/s couple involved in a relationship to set up a "No-Limits" relationship that includes those various things that you disagree with (on other threads only).  Can you not see the hypocritical nature of what you spout?

quote:

ORIGINAL: laurell3

Bob that's just silly, a relationship can't give you self-esteem.  In fact, it's not likely to succeed.  If you don't believe in yourself, others won't either.  Putting another in the position to "make you happy" puts pressure on the relationship and doesn't work.

If you can't stand alone, you can't stand as two.
l

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

quote:

ORIGINAL: laurell3

Bob that's just silly, a relationship can't give you self-esteem.  In fact, it's not likely to succeed.  If you don't believe in yourself, others won't either.  Putting another in the position to "make you happy" puts pressure on the relationship and doesn't work.

If you can't stand alone, you can't stand as two.
l

My experience tells me otherwise.

Sometimes it takes another to believe in you for you to learn to believe in yourself.

My wife and the woman I talk about in the "Meds" thread are two examples of this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EbonyPhoenix68

I've scened with BBW subs/slaves, but thought my personal preference is for someone with a slim to curvy build, the way I figure is that size, within reason, is a non-factor. What is much more important is their dedication, devotion, loyalty and their confidence in who they are as a sub/slave. But a good looking body is a bit of a plus!

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

snip
Could it simply be a case of sending out negative energy and getting a negative response?  You can't yell "SHIT" into the Grand Canyon and expect the echo to come back "sugar".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

What I find most interesting about this thread is the way you chose to ignore those earlier comments made by myself and others attempting to explain in a serious manner how we view things and that, while I don't agree with those dominants who base their attraction to submissives purely on their looks, I do feel it is THEIR right to do so.  Shallow?  Maybe...or maybe they have dealt with large women all their life and now want one who has a "storybook" figure.  But if you call that shallow, then would you not also have to call the male dominant who wants ONLY a BBW as his submissive, at the expense of the "storybook-figured" ones shallow also?

I was about to say what a good point this is, but then I get to this:

quote:


As for you Bob, once again you sweep in and urge on confrontation rather than just answering the OP.  You speak of the one you seek...how far are you getting in that with your swooping-in-to-save act while at the same time, starting threads denigrating those of us who believe in things you don't believe in WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, you post broadly and ever so graciously about how it is the right of any D/s couple involved in a relationship to set up a "No-Limits" relationship that includes those various things that you disagree with (on other threads only).  Can you not see the hypocritical nature of what you spout?

I'm afraid I'll just have to disagree with your characterizations here.

For example, in the "No Limits" thread I said more than once they have the right to consent to a relationship even if it includes activities I would not permit in my relationships. I also made clear that caveat did not include activities that included non-consenting individuals.

In the "Punishment..." thread I made clear that I did not understand the rationale behind punishment, that the thread was for the purpose of better understanding it, and that whether I understood it or not in no way invalidated anyone's relationship.

quote:


As I don't believe in punishment, I don't really see a difference between an "infraction" and an "excuse for sadism".

They both seem to be a way of loading any guilt the d/m is feeling about being sadistic on the back of the submissive.

It's like saying "you've made me angry" when the truth is I choose whether I will respond with anger or something else to whatever is done to me or around me.

Do you see where I am going with this? It's akin to abusive husbands who blame the beatings on their wives' behaviour.

Please note the bold part where you seem to declare that you see punishment as akin to abusive husbands who blame the beatings on their wive's behavior.  Then please explain to me where that is not a condemnation, judgment, and invalidation of others' D/s dynamic.

Then there is this from that thread...

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

Go read some Behavorial Science, figure out the difference between corrective and punitive punishment, and then you will have your answer.

And both obtain results by instilling fear of further punishment in the sub/slave.

Do those who cannot rule through love resort to ruling through terror?

Do they really, Bob?  Then why is it that with some...though most likely, not all...submissives, corrective action/discipline/punishment does not stop the behavior from EVER occurring again?  And please explain to me how the statements in bold print above are not of a condemning nature nor invalidating of how other D/s couples have chosen to run their dynamic...something that they have both discussed, negotiated AND agreed to?

As you know, there are other examples but I will go with those two.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

What I find most interesting about this thread is the way you chose to ignore those earlier comments made by myself and others attempting to explain in a serious manner how we view things and that, while I don't agree with those dominants who base their attraction to submissives purely on their looks, I do feel it is THEIR right to do so.  Shallow?  Maybe...or maybe they have dealt with large women all their life and now want one who has a "storybook" figure.  But if you call that shallow, then would you not also have to call the male dominant who wants ONLY a BBW as his submissive, at the expense of the "storybook-figured" ones shallow also?

I was about to say what a good point this is, but then I get to this:

quote:


As for you Bob, once again you sweep in and urge on confrontation rather than just answering the OP.  You speak of the one you seek...how far are you getting in that with your swooping-in-to-save act while at the same time, starting threads denigrating those of us who believe in things you don't believe in WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, you post broadly and ever so graciously about how it is the right of any D/s couple involved in a relationship to set up a "No-Limits" relationship that includes those various things that you disagree with (on other threads only).  Can you not see the hypocritical nature of what you spout?

I'm afraid I'll just have to disagree with your characterizations here.

For example, in the "No Limits" thread I said more than once they have the right to consent to a relationship even if it includes activities I would not permit in my relationships. I also made clear that caveat did not include activities that included non-consenting individuals.

In the "Punishment..." thread I made clear that I did not understand the rationale behind punishment, that the thread was for the purpose of better understanding it, and that whether I understood it or not in no way invalidated anyone's relationship.

Really, Bob?  Is that why your initial post was this...

Through the various punishment threads the theme seems to be:

1. sub/slave breaks a rule.
2. sub/slave needs physical punishment to learn not to break the rule.

What this says to me is:
1. sub/slave is not devoted to obeying her d/m
2. sub/slave is too stupid to learn by any other means than brute force.

Bottom line: to be a better d/m, and to get a more obedient sub/slave, frighten your sub/slave with punishment and the threat of punishment.

In another punishment thread I said:

quote:


As I don't believe in punishment, I don't really see a difference between an "infraction" and an "excuse for sadism".

They both seem to be a way of loading any guilt the d/m is feeling about being sadistic on the back of the submissive.

It's like saying "you've made me angry" when the truth is I choose whether I will respond with anger or something else to whatever is done to me or around me.

Do you see where I am going with this? It's akin to abusive husbands who blame the beatings on their wives' behaviour.

Please note the bold part where you seem to declare that you see punishment as akin to abusive husbands who blame the beatings on their wive's behavior.  Then please explain to me where that is not a condemnation, judgment, and invalidation of others' D/s dynamic.

quote:

Then there is this from that thread...

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

Go read some Behavorial Science, figure out the difference between corrective and punitive punishment, and then you will have your answer.

And both obtain results by instilling fear of further punishment in the sub/slave.

Do those who cannot rule through love resort to ruling through terror?

Do they really, Bob?  Then why is it that with some...though most likely, not all...submissives, corrective action/discipline/punishment does not stop the behavior from EVER occurring again?  And please explain to me how the statements in bold print above are not of a condemning nature nor invalidating of how other D/s couples have chosen to run their dynamic...something that they have both discussed, negotiated AND agreed to?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DocRudy

Anyone else thinking of a certain movie? Hmmm...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103241/

-DR