Jasmyn
Posts: 1234
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CuriousPuppy
I read through the last 4 pages of this thread, and have to say that I disagree with a great many of the people posting in it. A lot of the arguments seem to be based on a leap of logic that oddly tries to somehow link simple communications courtesy to actual play dynamics.
I can't tell how many people have started a conversation with me and seemed to have quite a difficult time communicating, but either outright ignored any questions I posed or got upset with me for asking. Now this would be one thing if it was me asking all manner of unusual or probing questions, but having "I don't understand what you mean by xyz" when it was barely a logical thought (forget sentence, lets try for a thought!) and came in some horrible form of typo netspeak is not an unreasonable question at all.
Saying that "the last 4 times we have talked, you abruptly /quit without saying anything in mid conversation (sometimes after asking a question even), is there something wrong?" when you have only talked with someone 5 times and maybe hour total, and asked the same question the last time you talked... "You shouldn't question a dominant, it's bad manners" should not ever be an acceptable answer, yet folks are making excuses for that sort of behavior because it comes from a "dominant".
When a dominant starts a conversation with me... is obviously having trouble finding a topic to start with at first... ignores, glosses over, or grunts at anything I myself ask, but says they "I have a name picked out for you puppy" but says nothing else... it's hardly reasonable to get upset when I ask the obvious curious and excited question of what that name is. When I say that I'm sorry but you mentioned that you had a name and I was curious about what it was since you didn't say anything else, get told "well it's boo" with nothing else... given the fact that most everything else I've asked was basically ignored if it wasn't related to whatever they just said, it stands to reason that "interesting :) why boo out of curiosity? is there some meaning to it? :)" is a reasonable question and "don't ask questions, I told you what it was you don't need to know" isn't really a good answer from someone having trouble communicating as it is. It's especially sad when this sort of ego shows itself after what seems like it might possibly be someone that could be a good match.
I don't think it's unreasonable at all to expect a moderate and completely reasonable level of manners in communications... especially with someone you just met and haven't gotten very far with going from strangers to dominant/submissive in a relationship.
CuriousPuppy I understand where you are coming from...but in context of the thread and the question asked...yes, the communicating of the dom's expectations of behaviour surrounding emails from someone who is showing interest in submission to them, can be considered a 'play dynamic'. If the person as the recipient of the request, is interested in pursuing something with him/her then they will willing oblige the request and think nothing of fullfilling the request as to their best abilities.
I'm sorry you've endured conversations like the above... it reads like you put in a position of having to pull hen's teeth from a duck with a pair of pliers made of feathers. Please don't feel that that kind of non-communicative style is indicative of all dominants, nor that it is indicative of the 'double standard' that most of us have agreed does it exist.
The "don't ask questions, I told you what it was you don't need to know" however is indicative of the 'double standard'; but is only a positive, when like you say, is not accompanied by an already questionable desire, let alone a questionable ability, of communication. Nor is it an effective line when delivered because they somehow think that this is how a dom behaves with a sub, by virtue of each other's title, not by virtue of having an actual agreement to dominate some other individual.
How can I explain things as they stand for me...
if a sub approaches me and askes to be my submissive or slave, then I will respond with what are my expectations of someone in my service and from the moment they agree to talking to me on those terms, then I will be 'dom' to their 'sub'... in as much as the 'd/standard' affords
if a sub approaches me and asks how my day was, then there has been no mandate or suggestion from them that they are indeed seeking submission (with me), that until such time as there is, then I will refrain of being 'the dom' to their 'sub' and the 'd/standard' does not apply... we are merely two people exchange thoughts
Some are want to have the dynamic in place from the get go and some are want to not....either way, I control the proceedings by how I react to their desire to control the proceedings.
< Message edited by Jasmyn -- 12/11/2005 1:25:09 PM >
_____________________________
quote:
"To learn the art of submission a slave must first give up the desires that drew him to submission in the first place." Mistress Jasmyn Jan 2005.
Visit My Website
|
RE: Double standard for Doms & subs? - 
Profile
...
...lol 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread