|
hopelesslyInvo -> RE: I have heard it said that (2/22/2008 11:24:49 PM)
|
i’m again writing to the content of the thread, not to it’s individuals, though obviously individuals will feel i am pointing them out because they wrote them. just keep in mind if you even bother to read this gigantic post, i’m not trying to insult anyone, and if it still seems to be... upsetting, or insulting to read, try reading it, as if christopher walken, is narrating, the post... this post... to YOU, and, maybe... maybe... you can appreciate, both the highly amusing, and unique, and... full of character, personality... that is indeed, christopher walken, and of course, appreciate, the light-hearted, but honest, intents... of the person writing them. and if you still feel, offended... and reading it in, the dialect, of walken, christopher bloody walken, does not make you laugh, on several occasions, i’ll be saddened, and insist, no, demand!... you rent, some walken movies, GOOD, walken, movies... because, you need, to be aware, of just how damn funny, everything, can be, when christopher walken, is reading it, to you...
but just in case you don’t want to read it like you’re christopher walken, the rest of my post is not typed like i’m christopher walken. =p
quote:
ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
Taking me too seriously is a burden I try to place on others.
anyone who has seen fit to take this burden upon themselves can blame no other.
quote:
I would not feel that I was "in control" if I always had to be in "in control"
this seemed the best way to explain the point that is currently “hot topic”, surely anyone can understand this meaning. it holds just as true in its counterpart, and is probably where i could better explain it.
i cannot surrender my control, until i have control to be parted with. you cannot gain control unless you lacked it in the first place. you cannot be in control, unless you can be out... of control. if you are truly in control, you would not possess control just because you are unable to be without it.
you cannot empty the gas tank, unless there is gas to deplete. you cannot fill your gas tank, until it is depleted. you cannot drive the vehicle without both the ability to move, and stop it. you are a hazard to other drivers and yourself, if you cannot do both at the times when they are appropriate.
maybe it’s time to call a taxi, but enough metaphors for the moment.
if you can’t control your own emotions, your desires, your very actions, do not worry about it making you submissive, make no mistake a dominant submits to their own desires, but if you cannot control yourself of these things, you are far from being dominant or submissive, you are an absolute slave. being outwardly or inherently dominant or submissive has nothing to do with this. if you lack freewill, you cannot be called by any other name, you are a slave, it doesn’t matter what position of power you are in.
if you are forced to control, if you cannot escape it, you are indeed the one being controlled, and while you may possess power, you are not possessing of control, because you cannot control yourself.
in which case the definition of a “true dominant” should be inarguable and absolute, yet very broad and widely applicable: as well as controlling anything else, within a dominant, the ability to control itself must also be present. possessing the will to dominate, inclusive of what things you wish to dominate, as opposed to having the ability to dominate these things is the real apples and oranges here.
i desire to rule the world!!!
is anyone holding their breath?
i desire to ravage this sexy piece of toast. (an absolute walken moment by the way~)
do you like toast too? =3
the bedroom and the courtroom are no different in this aspect. if the bedroom is the extent of your control, so be it, it will not mean you are not dominant. it is perhaps more indicative of control than a man who can control the courtroom and have no rival within its walls but at the same time his wife is in bed with another man. both have different means, reasons, merits, and uses. but in a nutshell, do you desire power, or do you desire satisfaction?
if you abide by laws or another’s will you submit to them. if it makes you pissed off to admit that or even hear it, or you question why you should have to be subjected to this sort of crap of following another’s rules in the first place, or try to word your submitting to them it in a way that makes it sound “less literal”, as if you’re just going along with it, or do it out of respect, though truth be told you don’t want to or care in the least... i’d say those are very good signs your nature is indeed quite dominant. no one seems to have implied that you had to be in control or unsubmissive to every circumstance that is ever met in order to be dominant but people get very easily impugned when something is even questioned about something so important to them.
to come in and basically say, “do you really think you're actually dominant, because i heard you only pretend to be half the time, and that the rest of the time you have to fulfill a need of being someone’s bitch”, lol yeah, that’ll rouse a few eyebrows, it’s similar to poking a snake with a stick, and you can’t be surprised with the reaction you’re going to get. the more important a persons standpoint is to them, the bigger a reaction you’ll see.
but what exactly is control? if you can answer that, or the general idea is enough for you, exactly what ways can you retain control?
lying? manipulation? power? respect? deception?
...submission?
a man mistreats his wife and she has decided to leave him. “i’m so sorry” he says, “i’ll do anything, just please don’t leave me!”
his sincerity is not what is important here, but very obviously he is submitting, and not just by paying his taxes. but if she agrees to it, she is being controlled. am i insinuating submissives are as just as able to be controlling or that submitting itself is a form of control. well no, and yes. through ways of manipulation it is very possible to “top from the bottom”. a person will need to know when to submit for many reasons, but a dominant could very well submit just to gain the control and advancement they are after.
does the idea of a dominant submissive seem so strange? then why might a submissive dominant? people have their soft spots, and there is of course merciful leaders, as well as there are manipulative worms. but *gasp* did i use the word merciful?
“how dare you accusate me! i like to use whips and chains and delight in the pains... but i know the limits and don’t go over the edge, it isn’t why i beat my sub, and i can be merciful.”
i take your word for it, but no dominant has to be a sadist or even a hard-ass in the first place, yet someone strongly opposed to all acts of violence and suppression may find the time when they are needed.
if you have a sadist that isn’t naturally dominant, might they be forced to dominate if they are find what they are after. might the domination be only in necessity to their goal? it would certainly be difficult for them to take the role of a submissive and pursue finding a master who forces her to beat him, don’t you think? she after all cares nothing for the domination or the submission, she simply enjoys inflicting pain on others, simple as that. and simple as that, someone who is purely a masochist is not likely to assume the role of a dominant. you can mix and match a lot of things.
the point is a “mistress” is not composed of certain required elements such as even to be dominant, and perhaps the only thing required to call oneself a mistress is a desire to be served. how you wish to be served is a whoopdie-do non-issue as far as i’m concerned. they could serve as a means in your desire to inflict pain. they could serve your desires as something to control. they could just serve your sexual desires. they could serve you herbal tea and a low-fat cookie. (don’t hate me for that one~)
but submission is not the opposite of domination in the first place, and it should never have been looked at as such to begin with.
the opposite of domination is servitude. the opposite of submission is defiance.
so why is a dominant submitting in some form, considered insulting in the first place?
everyone must accept they will have to submit to something if they wish to live any semblance of a life in this world.
don’t like it? get pissed. walken can only do so much.
if you were dominant in “everything” you would not be a mistress, you’d be god.
the president submits to congress. politicians submit to the people, and it is why must lie to them to be given their power. the conqueror must submit to the strength of his own army, that army must submit to its leader, otherwise you just have a crowd of dumbfounded people. rape itself can be a pathetic form of submission, and many criminals may often appear quite helpless if you really look closer, but the more general association is “insane”. i guess at best we can only be sympathetic for what happens, and what then must be done.
getting back on track~
if a person were to reject all things simply because they “refuse to submit to anything because they must dominate everything and be the dominant in all they do”, this is in definition of the coined “true dominant” because this person can no longer control so much as even themselves. if you resist arrest, if you refuse to take off your dirty shoes, if you rape the person who turned your date down, if from the time you had a conscious self till your very death you refused to submit to anyone and anything, you would be the most dominant willed person in history, period, exclamation point. but in their refusal to ever submit, they have instead become a slave, and despite their unquestionable and unrelenting will to dominate, has never actually been the dominant, because they have never been in control. for all the dominant nature possessed, the best they could accomplish is defiance.
we are not dominant or submissive in every action we do, we are who we are in every action we do. you are not dominant in the way you draw breath, and the fashion in which you breathe cannot discern that you are dominant. (maybe you could take away breath to show it though =p~) i really would love to see how people could possibly be dominant in breathing, would it be similar to a rampaging bull stomping around and breathing so hard you knock dust around, or more like pushing people aside and screaming “MY AIR! NO AIR FOR YOU!!!” and looking like a paranoid schizoid.
peoples posturing and nuances are not inherent of who they are. not every drummer taps their feet, not everyone tapping their feet would care to play the drums. people are what they are, there are reasons for it that you may as well never bother to question because the answer to them is still, they are who they are. people have their own little nuances in the things they do; you can appreciate these things, you can even find yourself falling in love with them, you can adore the look a woman has each time her hair falls down in her face, or the strange little groan she makes each time she realizes she forgot to lock the door on the way out. but you can only love these things because they are the defining parts of her, and are not of the predefined. no one is 1 dimensional. it cannot be that “she’s dominant in everything, end of story”, each person is unique, for many many reasons. just being dominant would be less than 1 dimensional, to even be 1 dimensional you need to know “what does she like to dominate, and why, and how?” to be 3 dimensional, what other factors are in her life besides just dominating? we know they exist. were not talking being dominant, or having a dominant nature, were talking actions, choices, more than just one means to an end. your mistress likes to dominate men? congrats. but in looking for a man she doesn’t have a 1 dimensional choice, so could not make a 1 dimensional answer. that’s why the choice is hard, that’s why the choice has merit.
and if you find her to be dominating in all she does, but if all she does is dominate then it’s not much of a surprise now is it? but that can’t be true, she must be more than just this one word “dominant”. and all these ever changing interests, experiences, and viewpoints in a persons life will always be present, but do not diminish that she is dominant. their influence will resonate throughout someone’s entire being, and be in all things they do, and yes the very way they do them. but can you distinguish that in this breath that i’m being dominant, oh and that breath too, oh and that one!... i think not. nor could you distinguish it from the countless other things that define a person in each action. she is dominant, but she is more, and these other things do not take away from that, and so you must love them to, for they play equal part in defining her, and without these other things she would no longer be this person who you so adore.
you can detect to a realistic degree detect emotion, it’s another beautiful little thing you could say. you can see someone being extremely content, or pleasantly pleased as they take a deep slow breath. or in the steps someone takes you can sense they’re pissed off, but i imagine you’ll find their expression and posture more indicative than the sigh or footsteps themselves.
it’s all admirable sentiments of course, but figurative does not mix well with literal. and it was never said in any plain form “she’s not truly dominant”, there were simply words several pages before mine suggesting nothing more or less, despite respite or some form of cleverness, that “each person is a multitude of unending different aspects, no person is a sole embodiment of one with the exclusion of all else”. for you to say “She is a Dominant in every breath She takes and every move She makes.”, is to say “but she is nothing else”, you were questioned to the realization that she is made up of more than one detail, it was not to say “she is not actually dominant”, just “not limited to dominant”.
i do wonder though, and i’m not trying to convince anyone here, but is over-reacting and tiresome melodrama expected to be remedial?
moving on~
100 dominant women get pulled over and are told “step out of the car ma’am”... most of them might ask why, many might refer to the officer as sir, many of them might have some snooty look on their face, but of all 100 only 1 gets out of the car immediately after being told to.
we can obviously see she is not a dominant natured person, as she was the only one to immediately submit to this infidel police officer’s command, and get out of the car. now the one who was being the biggest ass to the officer and gives him the most trouble, she is obviously both the most dominant and the best of these other girls at dominating, period.
what a stupid viewpoint...
the respectful one probably goes home without even a written warning, yet the “ass” will probably end up with a ticket, and for what? now instead of being respectful and simply submitting in an appropriate time and manner, not only did she end up submitting anyway, she just got totally dominated.
really now, what does being submissive or dominant in nature, have to do with when or why we choose take either of these adjectives and make them a verb? it’s all out of context. it’s like saying i only drink, i never piss. apples and oranges doesn’t mean you can only be one of those two, it means we can all be fruity and not be the same. everyone has various multitudes of actions they take in life, and as it stands it was never stated in the first place “there are no dominants, only subs and switches because there are police officers and judges that will look at you and be like “shut the hell up foo and pay your taxes”. the question states that a dominant person, will eventually desire the livelihood of a servant or in bdsm terms which are more applicable, a domme will “NEED?” to be someone’s bitch? and if they don’t want to always be this way, then bounce back and forth between the two as if bdsm or the very nature of a person is some sort of game of ping pong. if dom/mes didn’t exist there would be nothing to switch into in the first place. it’s like saying superman is a swtich and not simply a hero because he isn’t always wearing a cape and saving lives. sometimes superman isn’t saving lives, and decides to put on some glasses and comb his hair, but he’s always superman and he’s always a hero, he doesn’t switch into a super villain, and if he did i doubt it would be because he was thinking ‘oh yeah baby, lets mix it up a bit’, or because he’s thinking ‘wow, i just need to be absolutely what i am not, that makes sense to me’.
even statements like “subs who were once dom/mes make the best subs” or “dom/me’s who were once subs make better dom/mes” seem completely ludicrous to me. it’s pretty insulting outright, though no more insulting than people who would say a person you was x would never make a good y, but who cares that’s not the point, the point is this isn’t a damn sport. why the hell are words like better being used here. how many people want their girlfriends to go suck a bunch of different guys off and then have those guys suck on her strap-on so that by the time the poor girl gets back in 6 months, she can give you better head? did you only want her in the first place because you were concerned with the degree in quality she has in giving head? i’m sure she can do just as well without you sending the poor girl through cock sucking boot camp first. and in saying some dom/mes realized they were basically part of an act and only fooling themselves who then become aware that they’re actually submissive... it’s like, what are you trying to say hrtr? you’re still just saying “they’re submissive”. these aren’t switches that can’t make up their damn mind. they made up their mind, and what they used to be is no longer what they are now, even if “what they are now” is just a better cock sucker due to being on the other end of the penis for a year or so.
to submit you must give up control, to dominate you must have use for this control. to be a maid you must have a house to serve under; to be a leader you must have people who will submit to your commands. you need at least 2 people to play follow the leader, only 1 can be at the front.
how many are following? how many are leading? do the people in the middle feel more like a follower or a leader? if you’re following someone else are you aware of your own followers, do you care if you’re the one on the end? if you look behind you it’s at the risk of going off course and taking anyone following you along with you. no leader would want to do that... but does the leader lead so that others will follow, or so others will be able to follow?
the stray comes to your house night after night, each time you look it is always there, is it yours? do you want it to be? the kitten you bought has run off and become lost, is it yours? do you want it back? the dog you’ve owned for years has abandoned you. is it yours? was it you or the dog that was betrayed? what will you do now?
do not be upset by the one who caused you to question or doubt your beliefs, rejoice that this person may cause you to find greater truth in your beliefs because you actually questioned them.
here my neato question if you want something to ponder over...
what is the greatest act of submission?
if any of my lighthearted ranting bothers anyone, the last thing i will wish is for you to remain silent, but come on now... the sake of argument loses its merit quickly. but adversely, feel free to agree too, i won’t stab you with a fork for not thinking i’m an idiot.
and just because i was like “oh yeah” at the last second~~~
quote:
if a Sub is really a sub, a slave, or a bottom...there are distinctions made there - there are probably similar "catagories" a Dom/me could be placed in - I'm surprised with all the need for labels, that hasn't been done yet!
how about dom/me, mistress/master, owner, and top?
p.s.
i'm very dominant to my keyboard.
|
|
|
|
