Padriag
Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Focus50
quote:
Transferring an "observation" to written form for others to make sense of requires a level of logic from the author - IN MY OPINION. But hey, substitute any other word (for "logic") you like, if that's all your petty beef is here....
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, which you suddenly seem quite willing to waffle on. If you didn't really mean "logic" an we can substitute any other word... then what did you mean?
quote:
quote:
quote:
I mean, D/s or M/s is a complementing dynamic afterall....
The conundrum is that if the dominant mindset had "too much" self esteem to balance or complement the sub's alleged low self esteem, why would that make a submissive mindset attractive to us in the first place?
Is it? You seem to be making a curious assumption. Why would one necessarily corellate to the other? Who is this "us" you refer to? Do you propose all dominants are alike in regards to what they find appealing?
My "curious assumption" is that I believe in Nature's balance in all things. Around here it can be Yin & Yang. If these are new concepts to you then that's your problem.
The concepts aren't new to me, nor am I apparently the one with a problem. However, you've yet to explain yourself or exactly how your belief applies here. You made some very critical remarks regarding the OP, I questioned them because I don't see them as being valid points. Your response so far has been dismissal and childish name calling. I don't think I'm the one with a problem here.
[quote:
quote]quote:
And does that qualify anyone in the vanilla world with low self esteem issues as being a closet submissive, too?
That's beyond what the OP asked. However, yes, I would say that those with low-self esteem have a tendancy towards submissive behavior. That is not the same as kinky Submissives. Another trend would be overcompensation going in the opposite direction towards domineering behavior. Would you like text book references for these phenomenon
Wrong - self-esteem is very much the flavour of the topic! How you interpret the subject and present your opinion of what was stated or implied is entirely irrelevant to my post, though probably unsurprising to your own shrink.
And where do you suppose I said self-esteem wasn't the topic? Are you sure you read my post? All I stated was that speculating on whether someone outside the lifestyle with low self esteem was a closet submissive was beyond the scope of the OP. And again, with the petty insults. Is that the best arguement you can muster?
quote:
quote:
quote:
I think the answer is that needing to to defer to the will and choice of another has exactly ZERO to do with personal self esteem.
And I could quote three behavioral psychology texts books from my personal library that would all say you are entirely wrong in that assumption. There is a clear and documented history of exactly that relationship between the two. Ah, but I forget, we aren't supposed to say so, isn't politically correct less people have to face the reality that not all submissives are strong, independent, intelligent, capable people... some of them are, in fact, basket cases... and most fall somewhere inbetween. But we aren't supposed to talk about that as it opposes the popular myth that submissive women are "strong, independent and intelligent".
Hey, if the lifestyle is nothing more than psychological research for you then take it up with the site owners rather then pretending you're one of us. This lab rat bites....
You seem very confused. Just above you claim self esteem is the central focus of this topic (implying I had said it wasn't, although I never stated any such thing). Here, I've quoted and bolded where you seem to be implying self esteem has little to do with these choices. Care to make up your mind? I disagreed with you in my reply, stating that self esteem very much is at issue her and does affect the choices made by some submissives and supported that statement. You're response is yet more name calling and now imperiously declaring I'm not actually part of the lifestyle. And on what do you base that pronouncement? Or again, is the best reply you can manage simply more personal attacks and name calling?
quote:
quote:
quote:
And that intelligent people can't generalise about one (submissive) mindset without considering the complementing opposite!
Oh? So if I disagree, are you insinuating I'm not intelligent?
Close...! You're rapidly presenting as someone who's quite intelligent but a real dope with it. I mean, really, these are your arguments on a community message board - psychology text books; semantics; sophistry and "intelligence" manifesting as superior, posturing petulence? Yep, a real dope!
And you descend further.... still nothing in the way of a rational argument to support any of your claims however. I do wonder though if you are really this threatened by anyone who apparently has more of an education than you.
quote:
quote:
I don't mean to pick on you Focus, however, your post was one of the few I felt I could critque. One thing that has struck me in all these replies is how quick so many were to respond defensively. If anything, I think it belies how much insecurity actually does exist regarding the topic.
Well of course you don't; I'm not intelligent enough (by your lofty standards) to discern anything else! I'm nothing if not a free lunch.... ;-)
Actually Focus, I stated I wasn't picking on you and chose your post to critique because I thought... of those posts I disagreed with, yours was the most coherent and intelligent... and the one post I thought I might get a rational response from. Sadly, this has been a disappointment.
quote:
But since *you're* such an expert, explain to all of us the devil in being "defensive", especially if it's even possible to disagree with someone without being branded *defensive*! Fair dinkum; it's the contemporary "witch" slur for arrogant fops who spend too much time reading about life in their personal libraries and none at all out there living it (with real people, anyway....).
The "devil of being defensive" as you put it is simply this. The OP made an observation and asked for others opinions. There was nothing in what the OP said that was directed personally at anyone. Since no personal attack was made, there was no rational reason for anyone to become defensive. Despite that, many did. When someone reacts to a simple statement as though a personal attack had been made, it often indicates a degree of insecurity on their part... which can stem from lack of confidence, low self esteem, etc. In short, people who become defensive over impersonal statements are saying a good deal about themselves... and their own issues.
I don't have to brand you as being defensive, you've done that and more yourself. I suspect at this point many are likely viewing you as being rather juvenile since that was the tenor of your entire reply to me. You've pretty much run the gamut of slurs here. You've called me names, you've implied I'm not "real and twue", you've made flimsy attempts to discredit and attack me personally. All this is a bit over the top considering no where did I ever call you any names or make any personal attacks on you... I simply disagreed with you. But you have done nothing to support your own argument which remains without a rational basis. That leaves me with no choice but to assume all your affrontry is a cover because you have no basis for your opinions.
I'm also done discussing it with you... and calling your tirade a discussion is being charitable.
_____________________________
Padriag
A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer
|
RE: Self Esteme, & the sub/slave - 
Profile
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