RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message


cpK69 -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 9:10:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtlebutterfly

How do you define that difference?



It is hard to define in just a few words, but it has to do with approach, (or lack there of?) Sir, has a way of inspiring my curiosity as a sub, my ex (es), tried to trap me, to keep me.

Not sure if that explains it very well.

Wanted to add, it is not just with Sir this happens, there are many who intregue me for the same reason, despite a lack of any inclination to be owned by them.

Kim

p.s. there is more to it than that; I will need to think on it more, to be clearer. 




subtlebutterfly -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 9:46:49 AM)

*thinks very hard*
mmmmm nope I didn't get it[8D] but it's okay, thanks![:)]




cpK69 -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 10:07:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtlebutterfly

*thinks very hard*
mmmmm nope I didn't get it[8D] but it's okay, thanks![:)]



Me either. [8|] [:D] 




IronBear -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 10:09:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cpK69

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtlebutterfly

How do you define that difference?



It is hard to define in just a few words, but it has to do with approach, (or lack there of?) Sir, has a way of inspiring my curiosity as a sub, my ex (es), tried to trap me, to keep me.

Not sure if that explains it very well.

Wanted to add, it is not just with Sir this happens, there are many who intregue me for the same reason, despite a lack of any inclination to be owned by them.

Kim

p.s. there is more to it than that; I will need to think on it more, to be clearer. 


Yes, yes.. Makes perfect sense to me and spot on too..




SlaveBlutarsky -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 10:25:19 AM)

Honestly, these type discussions are why I tend not to 'stick' at sites like this. I'll pop into the forums for a week or two at a time and than disappear until the next time, whenever that is.

Over my 10 or so years in 'the lifestyle' I've noticed that people within it have the overwhelming need to label and define everything, as well as push their definitions on everyone else.

It's frustrating to see from a group of people who are basically considered freaks and weirdos from the rest of society. There's a million different shades of kink, just like there's a million different shades of vanilla, just like there's a million different definitions of submission, dominance, etc.

In the last couple of days I've been told I'm not a true submissive because I'd let a woman take care of me while I'm sick and that I thought femmedommesocirty was a cheesy and insincere website.

I guess people miss the delineation between a submissive and your submissive, just like they miss the fact that the way you or I approach this lifestyle and the million of variations within it are completely different as well.

It's truly amazing how myopic of a view some people have about life, especially those who claim to be so open minded and accepting, as is commonly claimed in this community.




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 10:29:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CatdeMedici


 
" How can you be a Dominant, when You don't have a sub, don't play and aren't seeking?"--I have My response, but I wonder if My response is a need to defend versus validate versus simply state: we are what we believe, irregardless...



I say that that's such a foolish question it's not worth the key strokes it takes to answer it, and if it was asked seriously, whoever asked it isn't worth talking to. But that's just me.




cpK69 -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 10:34:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear

[Yes, yes.. Makes perfect sense to me and spot on too..



Phew! *wipes sweat from brow* (hope you weren't kidding) [:)]

Sometimes I have such a hard time just spitting it out.[;)]

I was confused as to why I was unable to consider one of my bosses, whom I often thought, “he would make a great Dom, if he was inclined to be”, as a Dom; I certainly felt submissive around him. I think it is because my boss inspired me to serve, Sir and other D types inspire me to know me, as a submissive. (Borrowing the thought from another member of CM.)

Kim




sirsholly -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 10:35:23 AM)

quote:

How can you be a Dominant, when You don't have a sub, don't play and aren't seeking?"



-Am i still a heterosexual even though i do not have an active sex life?

-Am i still a licensed driver even though i do not have a car?

My definition of myself does not change secondary to the absence of a person/object









pixidustpet -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 11:28:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cpK69

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtlebutterfly

How do you define that difference?



It is hard to define in just a few words, but it has to do with approach, (or lack there of?) Sir, has a way of inspiring my curiosity as a sub, my ex (es), tried to trap me, to keep me.

Not sure if that explains it very well.

Wanted to add, it is not just with Sir this happens, there are many who intregue me for the same reason, despite a lack of any inclination to be owned by them.

Kim

p.s. there is more to it than that; I will need to think on it more, to be clearer. 


it made sense to me.  there are those with dominant personalities, whom others will let lead and follow happily, who can take charge and get things done, but not have the want/ability to be a person in charge of another person and want to be *personally* dominant rather than generally.

at least how i see it.  [:)]

and yes, its absolutely possible to be submissive and not be A submissive or slave. 

kitten




camille65 -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 11:33:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cpK69

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtlebutterfly

How do you define that difference?



It is hard to define in just a few words, but it has to do with approach, (or lack there of?) Sir, has a way of inspiring my curiosity as a sub, my ex (es), tried to trap me, to keep me.

Not sure if that explains it very well.

Wanted to add, it is not just with Sir this happens, there are many who intregue me for the same reason, despite a lack of any inclination to be owned by them.

Kim

p.s. there is more to it than that; I will need to think on it more, to be clearer. 


How about saying that it is a matter of intent?
I see a dominant person as someone who purposefully explores and uses that part of themselves to assert domination over someone who is willing to submit to that.

Someone who happens to have a dominant personality doesn't mean they are dominant over someone who actively explores their submissiveness. They do often use their strength of personality within their work or social world but it is more a by product of personality rather than cultivated for a particular end.

That is just a very quick response from me on it.




cpK69 -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 11:45:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: camille65

How about saying that it is a matter of intent?
I see a dominant person as someone who purposefully explores and uses that part of themselves to assert domination over someone who is willing to submit to that.


I say; very, very, warm, to my thoughts...

I sense I am overlooking an aspect of the equation, as it pertains to me. This is gonna bug me, until I can think of what it is. [:(]

Kim







camille65 -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 11:47:53 AM)

Well it was a quick answer that I didn't put a whole lot of thought into, so if you can clarify what I'm trying to say (gaze into my eyes, read my mind please oh please) then go for it.
[:D]

But to me, intent really is at the crux of the matter. Awareness, mindfulness. Actively working toward ___________?




cpK69 -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 12:13:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: camille65

Well it was a quick answer that I didn't put a whole lot of thought into, so if you can clarify what I'm trying to say (gaze into my eyes, read my mind please oh please) then go for it.
[:D]



lol... I am too confused from trying to figure out what I'm trying to say.  [;)] *presently caught in the labyrinth that is her mind*[&:]

Kim




windchymes -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 3:26:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CatdeMedici

Over the last few days, I have read with much interest Steel's post about being responsibly single. Through that I have seen posts like Mine that say, " I am happily single"--and I was recently challenged with:
 
" How can you be a Dominant, when You don't have a sub, don't play and aren't seeking?"--I have My response, but I wonder if My response is a need to defend versus validate versus simply state: we are what we believe, irregardless...
 
what say you?


You're a cat.....just give them that same baleful stare my cat gives me when I ask her questions she doesn't feel she needs to answer [;)]




MasterFireMaam -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 3:53:43 PM)

Being Master is like being female...I am both whether or not I have a partner. But, many see Master like wife...they are not either without a relationship to define it. To me, being Master is about being who I am and having the relationship is about exercising what I do as that.

Master Fire




CallaFirestormBW -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 5:43:50 PM)

I'm dominant regardless of whether I currently keep servants or not. My dominance is a state of being that exists regardless of interaction. When I am alone, I am self-directed and maintain the same expectations as I would if I were interacting with someone else.

I am poly, regardless of whether I am currently cohabiting with or in a committed relationship to someone. I am poly because I have a number of people still in my life with whom I am intimately and familially connected. I am a mother, despite the fact that none of my children live with me any longer.

Dominance... poly... motherhood... these aren't -jobs-, they are states of being that imprint themselves upon one's personality and shape the way one sees the world from the moment that one recognizes them. I don't require another person to validate those things for me, though I am willing, on occasion, to interact with others who complement my own inherent nature.




GYPZYQUEEN -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 5:53:48 PM)

can a woman mother without children?..can a man be a jockey without a horse?
can a DOMME be  such without seeking?

it is WHO they are .... a noun...a persona...a way of being...at the core

 




Andalusite -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 6:04:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IrishMist Since it is my own personal belief that being Dominant or submissive is a personality trait and something that you ARE ( versus something that you do ), it matters little whether or not a person has a submissive to serve them or a Dominant to serve. You would still be either Dominant or submissive in my eyes.


So, what do you consider switches to be? I was submissive in my last relationship, but was dominant in a previous one. My other BDSM relationships were egalitarian kinky, and I'm usually pretty neutral toward people as far as D/s goes. I can be a little deferential when meeting strangers, especially in large groups, or if they are significantly older than I am, but I'm also perfectly capable of taking charge when appropriate in vanilla circumstances.

cpK69, to me, it isn't a matter of how they make me feel - there are plenty of dominants and submissives who I don't react to on a D/s basis. I just don't see people that way unless I'm directly interacting with them on a date/usually with at least mild play, just like I don't tend to get sexually attracted to them until they're touching me/etc.

Someone is Dominant if they are oriented toward wanting control in a *consensual* acknowledged D/s or power exchange relationship. That can include traditional marriages without using the language, but it definitely involves their relationship style. Likewise for submissives. Some switches are both, some are neither, some are Dominant masochists or submissive sadists. For me to interact with someone on a D/s basis, one of us needs to have a yielding of will toward the other, it's not just about who's doing the tying up and thwacking.

Cat, I see it as an orientation, not just a relationship title. It can be used in both ways, depending on circumstances.




LovingMistress45 -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 6:35:37 PM)

Some people tend to try to but everyone in boxes and lable them.  I am a dominant whether or not I have a sub.  For that matter I am a Mistress whether or not I have a collared sub/slave.  I don't need a person in order to define who I am.  During the several years that I was being "responsibly single", as Steel would term it, did not make me any less than when I am in a relationship or seeking a relationship.  No more than being celibate would mean I am no longer a sexual being, it means that I have chosen for whatever to put that aspect of my life on hold.




stella41b -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 6:52:05 PM)

Existensialism.

Simply google 'Jean Paul Sartre'.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875