RE: What attracts also repels?

RE: What attracts also repels? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

Prinsexx -> RE: What attracts also repels? (7/27/2009 7:57:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 they want the strength and intelligence but i dont think see the strength and intelligence once the strong intelligent woman is kneeling naked before him. I know we are kindred spirits with regard to this.

Prinsexx -> RE: What attracts also repels? (7/27/2009 8:00:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daintydimples Great thread! This is something I have thought about a lot, since I have experienced it as well. I am a strong, intelligent, successful female. Emotionally I would have to describe myself as "intense." I tend to be attracted to the alpha Dom types. Some of them are very attracted to me, at first. I think they see me as a challenge. They constantly seek to explore and exploit my vulnerabilities. The goal appears to be to "bring me down." Once I have submitted, I tend to be very submissive. And I think this duality in my nature is ...shocking? unexpected? I can't answer that since the rare times this has happened their thoughts were not something they were willing to share with me. I do feel supported in the solidarity of this. I have often felt alone. The 'aloneness' has been intensified in relationship to a dom who has sought to 'lessen me.'

daintydimples -> RE: What attracts also repels? (7/27/2009 8:01:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sravaka 1. those whose sense of power is tied to the ability to destroy things... and who think the "bigger" the thing they can destroy the more badass they are. 2. those who are attracted to resumes rather than substance. As in, cool! she's a professor of wacky obscure stuff! I want to say I bagged one of those! Just don't ask me to put up with (or even hear about) the day to day reality of her career. That's her problem. And if she can't manage it, it's obviously because she's a bad sub. 3. those who genuinely want to have smart/competent people in their worlds, as partners and generally, who are not threatened, who do not see a conflict between competence and submissiveness (though they may be interested in rechanneling some of the competence for their own purposes). Agreed I think you might need to add some criteria to your list beyond physical attractiveness and smarts. It's not that the criteria are flawed, just that they aren't sufficient as filters. I don't have physical attractiveness listed on my profile, so I'm not sure who this was directed at. I am interested in know your thoughts on .what other criteria should be set a/o how to weed out the 1s and 2s.

Prinsexx -> RE: What attracts also repels? (7/27/2009 8:04:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sravaka Very interesting thread.... I've encountered this sort of thing too, both in D/s and in vanilla relationships. I used to divide doms who seek smart/competent chicks into three groups. 1. those whose sense of power is tied to the ability to destroy things... and who think the "bigger" the thing they can destroy the more badass they are. 2. those who are attracted to resumes rather than substance. As in, cool! she's a professor of wacky obscure stuff! I want to say I bagged one of those! Just don't ask me to put up with (or even hear about) the day to day reality of her career. That's her problem. And if she can't manage it, it's obviously because she's a bad sub. 3. those who genuinely want to have smart/competent people in their worlds, as partners and generally, who are not threatened, who do not see a conflict between competence and submissiveness (though they may be interested in rechanneling some of the competence for their own purposes). There are probably other variations, but these 3 covered most of the population I encountered when I was still talking to random people. Guess which groups prevailed? Eventually I learned to weed out the 1s and 2s more quickly, thereby cutting down on aggravation and/or distress. I think you might need to add some criteria to your list beyond physical attractiveness and smarts. It's not that the criteria are flawed, just that they aren't sufficient as filters. I think this is great in its simplicity. I'll have to think through a typology-with-humour and add them in as filters to my profile. Thank you for this.

Prinsexx -> RE: What attracts also repels? (7/27/2009 8:12:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant These are the sorts of things that repel me...not competence, not intelligence, not the ability to rule the world outside of the D/s dynamic I share with her. What might repel me about that is the inability to set that facet of their personality aside and turn the facet of submission to me without some sort of prodding on my part. If the submission must be constantly prodded, then there would be difficulty but not necessarily repulsion UNLESS it were to continue to be so. A fascinating response and thank you very much. I'm going to read through your response again and reply to the component pats but first off: I had intended that the thread read: what attracts also repels meaning one and the same things. But my interpretation of what you have said is that some things attract and different things repel but those different things of course are aspects of the same submissive. That you are saying that the process of submission changes the submissive. I must admit that I have been guilty not so much of a dying libido but assuming that sexual initiation had to go when I became submissive: as if sexual inittiation was dominaeering.

daintydimples -> RE: What attracts also repels? (7/27/2009 8:17:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Good question with some good answers here. I can't speak for anyone else definitively so let me speak for me, from my perspective as a dominant. I appreciate a competent submissive woman. My first submissive was the business manager of the dental clinic she worked at and at home, she was the dominant partner in marital matters, not her husband. His dominance occurred outside the home. What attracted me, besides her looks-personality-character-intelligence-emotional stability, was the contradiction of her submission to me versus her dominance over all other situations. Tis been mentioned on here that for some dominants, that...the outer world dominance replaced by submission when within their presence... is a difficult and confusing thing to deal with and I guess that shows that there all kinds of variations on this side of the whip. For me, it is attractive. What repels me is something you did mention...emotional complexity of a sort wherein I never know from day to day where those emotions are going to be. What some people see as "dull" in terms of emotional variety, I see...like Dame Calla...as healthy stability when the emotional reactions...the feelings about something, including me...are more or less predictable. I want to know that she is going to love me today in the same way...if not more...as she did yesterday. I want to know that it is not going to take some minor thing to set her off on an emotional soul-search. I'd rather that soul-searching be done over something major or over something I've asked her to probe within herself. What repels me is the submissive who can be so very competent and intelligent in the outside world and yet bring a "dumbed-down" attitude to her submission, mistakenly thinking that it is part of submission. Again, some dominants like that...I don't. I want the same intelligent outlook they bring to their job, their family, their friends to be brought to their submission to me. What repels me is the submissive woman who will dress up for her friends and colleagues and family members but who thinks/assumes that when around me, her mode of dress is going to be "naked". It isn't. I appreciate a well-dressed woman as much as her friends and family and co-workers do. I appreciate the submissive who understands that sometimes, it is what is hidden and yet revealed that is most sexy to me. What repels me is the submissive who, while getting to know her and who, once she is developing a deeper interest in you, displays her sexuality and sensuality combined with her submission but who, once she is yours, begins to let all direction of sexuality be only at my command. That is the one who didn't listen when I said that I expect a submissive who is not only open to her own sexuality but actively looks for ways to express it to be able to behave in that same manner when mine. The cutting off of that "seduction" reminds me too much of sooooooooooooo many vanilla women who are "hot to trot" while being pursued but who, once they have been caught, become lukewarm. I know that for many submissives, it is because they have turned over all sexuality aspects to their dominant but where does it state that yielding of control over their sexual life means that they are no longer a creature imbued with the same wants/desires and the ability to express those that they were before control? These are the sorts of things that repel me...not competence, not intelligence, not the ability to rule the world outside of the D/s dynamic I share with her. What might repel me about that is the inability to set that facet of their personality aside and turn the facet of submission to me without some sort of prodding on my part. If the submission must be constantly prodded, then there would be difficulty but not necessarily repulsion UNLESS it were to continue to be so. Great post !! I am an emotionally very complex person (b/c I'm a switch?), so much of what you said really hit home. The thing is, that type of complexity is not something I can change . . .

sravaka -> RE: What attracts also repels? (7/27/2009 8:24:15 AM)
Sorry Dainty! That was meant in reply to Prinsexx and her criteria stated above.

sravaka -> RE: What attracts also repels? (7/27/2009 6:15:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daintydimples quote: ORIGINAL: sravaka 1. those whose sense of power is tied to the ability to destroy things... and who think the "bigger" the thing they can destroy the more badass they are. 2. those who are attracted to resumes rather than substance. As in, cool! she's a professor of wacky obscure stuff! I want to say I bagged one of those! Just don't ask me to put up with (or even hear about) the day to day reality of her career. That's her problem. And if she can't manage it, it's obviously because she's a bad sub. 3. those who genuinely want to have smart/competent people in their worlds, as partners and generally, who are not threatened, who do not see a conflict between competence and submissiveness (though they may be interested in rechanneling some of the competence for their own purposes). Agreed I am interested in know your thoughts on .what other criteria should be set a/o how to weed out the 1s and 2s. Ok. This is sravaka's quick guide to redflagging 1s and 2s in the wild. 1s quickly reveal themselves as overly invested in winning arguments with you (and/or, turning every discussion into an argument). There is no such thing as a friendly, truth-seeking disagreement-- it's all about winners and losers. They are particularly invested in winning against you on your own territory, often stooping to almost comically insulting tactics, such as countering something you know about via decades of direct experience with something they read on the internet. If one is foolhardy enough to progress farther with one of these, he eventually seeks to undermine you in precisely those undertakings which supposedly attracted him to you at first and it can get ugly and damaging. But for me at least, once I recognized that this was a "type," I'd get a gut feeling the first time I perceived someone turning something into a win-lose-- "ahh.. one of those. never mind." 2s generally reveal themselves in the way they listen or don't listen. They seek a sort of intellectual arm candy, believe their own value is somehow enhanced by association with something they think is cool. But they are either 1) devoid of curiosity about the substance of what you do, preferring to keep it at a safe distance or 2) devoid of curiosity about how how your career etc. relates to you (how you experience it, how it affects you). They deal with you as a cardboard cutout writer, lawyer, business owner, whatever you are, and prefer not to have their preconceptions disrupted. The red flag pops up when, for example, you spend a lot of time listening to them talk about what they do, but they change the subject if you try to talk about what you do, or insist on telling you how you should feel about things related to your world, etc. If you proceed farther down the path with them, they prove to have little tolerance for the inconveniences of hooking up with a smart/competent chick (such as time issues) and lay the resolution of them entirely at your feet. 3s see you as someone they can learn from as well as teach. They don't expect you to check your brain at the door when you submit to them (though they may take special pleasure in their ability to render an otherwise capable person completely incoherent [:)]) The tripartite scheme is no doubt an oversimplification... but I think it helped to weed out the ones who were most egregiously not on the same page. Revisions and amplifications to the model are very welcome.

daintydimples -> RE: What attracts also repels? (7/27/2009 9:02:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sravaka Ok. This is sravaka's quick guide to redflagging 1s and 2s in the wild. 1s quickly reveal themselves as overly invested in winning arguments with you (and/or, turning every discussion into an argument). There is no such thing as a friendly, truth-seeking disagreement-- it's all about winners and losers. They are particularly invested in winning against you on your own territory, often stooping to almost comically insulting tactics, such as countering something you know about via decades of direct experience with something they read on the internet. If one is foolhardy enough to progress farther with one of these, he eventually seeks to undermine you in precisely those undertakings which supposedly attracted him to you at first and it can get ugly and damaging. But for me at least, once I recognized that this was a "type," I'd get a gut feeling the first time I perceived someone turning something into a win-lose-- "ahh.. one of those. never mind." 2s generally reveal themselves in the way they listen or don't listen. They seek a sort of intellectual arm candy, believe their own value is somehow enhanced by association with something they think is cool. But they are either 1) devoid of curiosity about the substance of what you do, preferring to keep it at a safe distance or 2) devoid of curiosity about how how your career etc. relates to you (how you experience it, how it affects you). They deal with you as a cardboard cutout writer, lawyer, business owner, whatever you are, and prefer not to have their preconceptions disrupted. The red flag pops up when, for example, you spend a lot of time listening to them talk about what they do, but they change the subject if you try to talk about what you do, or insist on telling you how you should feel about things related to your world, etc. If you proceed farther down the path with them, they prove to have little tolerance for the inconveniences of hooking up with a smart/competent chick (such as time issues) and lay the resolution of them entirely at your feet. 3s see you as someone they can learn from as well as teach. They don't expect you to check your brain at the door when you submit to them (though they may take special pleasure in their ability to render an otherwise capable person completely incoherent [:)]) The tripartite scheme is no doubt an oversimplification... but I think it helped to weed out the ones who were most egregiously not on the same page. Revisions and amplifications to the model are very welcome. Thank you so much for your response! I have seen both ones and twos, sometimes in combo. Some of that behavior does not emerge for awhile. Anyone else have thoughts for how to weed out 1s & 2s ?

Prinsexx -> RE: What attracts also repels? (7/28/2009 5:35:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sravaka Very interesting thread.... I've encountered this sort of thing too, both in D/s and in vanilla relationships. I used to divide doms who seek smart/competent chicks into three groups. 1. those whose sense of power is tied to the ability to destroy things... and who think the "bigger" the thing they can destroy the more badass they are. 2. those who are attracted to resumes rather than substance. As in, cool! she's a professor of wacky obscure stuff! I want to say I bagged one of those! Just don't ask me to put up with (or even hear about) the day to day reality of her career. That's her problem. And if she can't manage it, it's obviously because she's a bad sub. 3. those who genuinely want to have smart/competent people in their worlds, as partners and generally, who are not threatened, who do not see a conflict between competence and submissiveness (though they may be interested in rechanneling some of the competence for their own purposes). There are probably other variations, but these 3 covered most of the population I encountered when I was still talking to random people. Guess which groups prevailed? Ok have read the responses to your tripartite system and have gone back to your first post on it here. I'm having to make simple analogies this morning in an attempt to figure this out. Ok so submission is a gift. So picture me as a present. Gift wrapped. (Pink ribbon the works). Type 1: those whose sense of power is tied to the ability to destroy things. Type 1 grabs me off the counter, even before he has agrred to purchase me, and shakes me over and over to see if there is something (anything?) inside the box. (Skeptical: maybe I am just window dressing?). Shakes me so hard I'm brusied and battered and in pieces even before I've had a chance to reveal myself. Type 2: those who are attracted to resumes rather than substance. Orders me from an Argos catalogue after looing at a picture and reading my specifications. Gets me as far as the car and starts to unwrap the packaging. As soon as I say: terribly nice to meet you, gives me one of those disapproving looks and takes me back as faulty. Type 3: those who genuinely want to have smart/competent people in their worlds, as partners and generally, who are not threatened, who do not see a conflict between competence and submissiveness Gets me home an unties the ribbon carefully. Has correct batteries and puts them in the right way round. Lets me charge over night (or for however long it takes until my light turns green). Turns me on. Listens to and observes all my pre-programmed services and then reads the instruction manual to see how to customise me. Thank you so much for the inspiration. Do you think something ike this might be useful in my profile.....?

sravaka -> RE: What attracts also repels? (7/28/2009 11:32:27 AM)
I'll have to think about this.... For now, all I can say is, ack! please don't take anything I say as inspiration for gift rhetoric! [:'(] Type 3 is a gift himself after all....

Apocalypso -> RE: What attracts also repels? (7/28/2009 4:25:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 they want the strength and intelligence but i dont think see the strength and intelligence once the strong intelligent woman is kneeling naked before him. That's part of the appeal for me, to be honest. I find vunerability hot. If I was unable to be as articulate for some reason, I'd feel incredibly vunerable... That only works with strong, intelligent women and the reason for that is possibly not entirely admirable. The state you describe only feels worthwhile if I'm dominating about someone who's actually got a significant distance to fall. quote: ORIGINAL: sravaka There are probably other variations, but these 3 covered most of the population I encountered when I was still talking to random people. Guess which groups prevailed? I can think of one other group, which I've definitely seen a significant number of, although my social circle is heavily overepresentative of this. Those who are highly intelligent and secretly or not so secretly highly judgemental about those who aren't. Who often don't even have people they consider of average or lower intelligence as friends. That would be me, I'm afraid. I can not be round stupid people because they say stupid things and I wince. That's bad enough from a friend, but there's no way I'd consider a submissive who annoyed me a significant amoutn of the time. Even nastier, I kinda don't want to have to worry about introducing them to some of my similar friends. Who can be very welcoming. But only to intelligent people. And I can't be doing with being embarassed by a submissive I'm with... Basically.... When group 3 types go bad!

Prinsexx -> RE: What attracts also repels? (7/28/2009 5:28:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso That would be me, I'm afraid. I can not be round stupid people because they say stupid things and I wince. That's bad enough from a friend, but there's no way I'd consider a submissive who annoyed me a significant amoutn of the time. Even nastier, I kinda don't want to have to worry about introducing them to some of my similar friends. Who can be very welcoming. But only to intelligent people. And I can't be doing with being embarassed by a submissive I'm with... Basically.... When group 3 types go bad! Type 3 (bad): Gets me home and unties the ribbon carefully. Has correct batteries and puts them in the right way round. Lets me charge over night (or for however long it takes until my light turns green). Turns me on. Listens to and observes all my pre-programmed services and then reads the instruction manual to see if I can be customised to meet his standards. Stuffs me (badly) back into torn up wrapping and returns me to get a refund and get a higher spec.

sravaka -> RE: What attracts also repels? (7/29/2009 12:48:37 AM)
quote: I can think of one other group, which I've definitely seen a significant number of, although my social circle is heavily overepresentative of this. Those who are highly intelligent and secretly or not so secretly highly judgemental about those who aren't. Who often don't even have people they consider of average or lower intelligence as friends. That would be me, I'm afraid. I can not be round stupid people because they say stupid things and I wince. That's bad enough from a friend, but there's no way I'd consider a submissive who annoyed me a significant amoutn of the time. Even nastier, I kinda don't want to have to worry about introducing them to some of my similar friends. Who can be very welcoming. But only to intelligent people. And I can't be doing with being embarassed by a submissive I'm with... Basically.... When group 3 types go bad! Sounds like a perfectly good variation on type 3 to me. [:)] And actually related to something I considered putting in as a 4th possibility: the so-called "85th percentile problem." There are flavors and degrees of smart, strong, etc., after all... and they need either to match up or to complement each other. But I don't dare get into that in detail. BTDT, still scarred by the flames. In fairness... it occurs to me that a equivalently hasty typology of submissives who identify themselves as smart, strong, et al. might end up containing numerous unattractive categories too. CreativeDominant's very insightful and enlightening post above suggests some possibilities.... But since I probably belong in one or more of those groups, I'll not dig my own grave.

Prinsexx -> RE: What attracts also repels? (7/29/2009 3:18:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sravaka But since I probably belong in one or more of those groups, I'll not dig my own grave. We all belong in groups... or not. We put ourselves into groups. We put others into groups. I think it's part and parcel of our attempts to deal with chaos. The sociologies. The psychologies. The scientific method itself. I made light of my dilemma above in the gift rhetoric. But to get back to character traits...or personality traits whatever term one wants to use. I am still stuck with the same issue and it's an issue of compromise. I have always had a tendency to change myself when in relationship. For me being in intimate relationship of any sort (be it familial, colleague, M/s) requires that I adapt and compromise my own needs in order to accommodate the Other's. If I were in a dominant position then I would imagine that this would be different. So: I'm still left with the dilemma of how much to compromise of my self, my assertive intelligence, my drive and motivations. Submission has never been this complex for me.

maturesub42 -> RE: What attracts also repels? (7/29/2009 3:34:14 AM)
For me, I let my submissive side take over when in an intimate relationship. Otherwise, professionally or else, I just say and do what I want.

sravaka -> RE: What attracts also repels? (7/29/2009 4:13:12 AM)
quote: So: I'm still left with the dilemma of how much to compromise of my self, my assertive intelligence, my drive and motivations. This is eminently unhelpful, and I hate to be writing it... but surely you shouldn't have to (in the sense of some abstract imperative) compromise much if at all on any of these things. I struggled with similar stuff for many years (and may not entirely be done). I've never found that intelligence needs to be compromised for someone actually worth being with. If that is required, it's simply not a match. (digression-- here's a possible 4th type-- the "you think too much" dom. related to some of the others) The places I see compromise being relevant are 1) compromising for the sake of not being alone. I've dabbled in this and found that it can't work for me in the end. It feels more empty than being single. The problem then becomes not compromising, but acknowledging that sheer demographics are going to force you to be patient, to expect your prettily wrapped package to sit on the shelf for a good long time, and to force yourself to keep up enough enthusiasm to dust it off occasionally. Of course, 2) it's also possible compromise your standards once in a while/temporarily for sake of taking the edge off the waiting/dusting. (for me this doesn't work terribly well either, but others manage it with aplomb). The tricky part is in compromising on ambitions. (not drive; specific ambitions) This I think sometimes is necessary for the sake of a good match, as when one's counterpart is not local, and sacrifices must be made to enable you to be together. I do not think it automatically falls to the submissive to give up ambitions, though it may more often work that way. Personal example: a large part of me would love to scam my way into a job at the very tip top of my field and be able to cause all sorts of fun trouble from that vantage point... but doing so would force me to move yet farther away from the prospective masterly one to places he is not inclined to go. Under these circumstances I'm pretty content to remain in a more middling sort of job and will find work-life satisfaction in figuring out how to cause equivalent trouble with the handicap. But it does no good to stew about how to manage this until there is a plausible prospective partner in the equation, I think. For the duration of being on the shelf, one simply goes about fulfilling one's independent ambitions in whatever way seems best. Motivations I can't comment on because I'm not sure what you mean. How do you change motivation? In any event, I don't think it's wise to approach this with a willingness to compromise on whatever you are fundamentally. If you're not a nitwit, or a slacker, or whatever, chances are you won't be able to fake being one convincingly. Certainly you won't fake it happily. ::shrug:: for what it's worth.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: What attracts also repels? (7/29/2009 6:05:24 AM)
quote: I have always had a tendency to change myself when in relationship. For me being in intimate relationship of any sort (be it familial, colleague, M/s) requires that I adapt and compromise my own needs in order to accommodate the Other's. If I were in a dominant position then I would imagine that this would be different. So: I'm still left with the dilemma of how much to compromise of my self, my assertive intelligence, my drive and motivations. I think that compromise is a natural part of living with others. Even on the dominant side of the kneel, there is a measure of collaborative agreement that needs to come with sharing a life with someone else -- and the more people there are in the mix, the more pervasive those collaborative agreements become, especially in my situation, where there are multiple dominant partners involved, as -well- as multiple submissive partners. If one isn't careful, one can find that one has compromised oneself into non-existence. What seems to be the bottom line, for me, is whether making a compromise to nurture our family would require me (or anyone in our household, regardless of the side of the kneel) to compromise what xhe believes to be hir basic -essence-. I am, profoundly, who and what I am. For me, that means needing to be in at least some measure of control of a given situation (ok, frankly, if not at the -top- eschelon of control, then no more than one or two steps down...or out of the control-cycle completely, as an independent but connected entity), being abjectly messy, substantially chaotic, extremely creative, occasionally obsessive, incidentally stubborn...(let's just say I have a decent handle on the aspects of my 'self') and I can accept almost -any- particular situation that accepts that these things are a part of me. I have my -preferences-, certainly, but as long as I can express my essential nature, the specifics are up for grabs. This provides me with a -lot- of flexibility in terms of expressing things like my personal ambitions, and keeps my level of motivation high, even in transitory phases. I am a -super- intense person, especially when you get me on a roll -- some folks just can't deal with that... or they can for a while, and then they can't any more. You know what, that's ok. It isn't going to keep me from being intense. I may be able to modify my intensity for a little while, but after a bit, it will be like a pinchy shoe and I'll be looking to take it off as soon as I can manage it. In the same way, if someone is with me and they're not really cool with my level of intensity, but they like me in general, well, after a bit, my intensity is going to get on their nerves... and probably, at some point, it will get on their very LAST nerve, and they'll decide that a relationship with me just is way too 'vibrant' for them -- and that's OK, too, because sometimes, what was good for us today isn't going to be the same thing that is good for us tomorrow, or next week, or in 5 years or 10. I don't necessarily see myself defined by what I -do-, per se. However, at least one of my companions -does- see herself defined by what she -does-, so for her, having to give up what she does is sort of like -me- having to give up my chaotic nature. If it were demanded as part of continuing in a relationship, she wouldn't be able to sustain that relationship (and someone actually did -try- to force this on her, so we already know how that scenario develops for her). I guess what I'm saying is, know yourself. Know who you are and what you need in order to feel right in a relationship -- then set those boundaries as your "no compromise" line. If maintaining your ambitions, stoking your motivation, and appreciating your intelligence are pre-requisites for having a person in your life that you're going to be able to relate to in the way that you want, then start by not accepting ongoing relationships with people who can't offer those things to you. Relating to others contains some sacrifices, yes -- but it doesn't have to be like throwing yourself into the volcano every time. Be who you are -- if it scares someone off, or if they mishandle you, then it's OK not to get into a deeper relationship with that person. If the relationship mutates to something that squashes you, the self, it's ok to walk away without having to fall into an abyss over it. I hope this made sense. Dame Calla

daintydimples -> RE: What attracts also repels? (7/29/2009 7:18:32 AM)
quote: I am a -super- intense person, especially when you get me on a roll -- some folks just can't deal with that... or they can for a while, and then they can't any more. You know what, that's ok. It isn't going to keep me from being intense. I may be able to modify my intensity for a little while, but after a bit, it will be like a pinchy shoe and I'll be looking to take it off as soon as I can manage it. In the same way, if someone is with me and they're not really cool with my level of intensity, but they like me in general, well, after a bit, my intensity is going to get on their nerves... and probably, at some point, it will get on their very LAST nerve, and they'll decide that a relationship with me just is way too 'vibrant' for them -- and that's OK, too, because sometimes, what was good for us today isn't going to be the same thing that is good for us tomorrow, or next week, or in 5 years or 10. ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW I could have written that paragraph. In retrospect I can see my emotional intensity has frightened off more potential suitors than my intelligence, competence and self -confidence. Only those equally as intense seem to be able to handle it. Of course that does make for some overly "vibrant" conversations at times.

CreativeDominant -> RE: What attracts also repels? (7/29/2009 7:26:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daintydimples quote: ORIGINAL: sravaka Ok. This is sravaka's quick guide to redflagging 1s and 2s in the wild. 1s quickly reveal themselves as overly invested in winning arguments with you (and/or, turning every discussion into an argument). There is no such thing as a friendly, truth-seeking disagreement-- it's all about winners and losers. They are particularly invested in winning against you on your own territory, often stooping to almost comically insulting tactics, such as countering something you know about via decades of direct experience with something they read on the internet. If one is foolhardy enough to progress farther with one of these, he eventually seeks to undermine you in precisely those undertakings which supposedly attracted him to you at first and it can get ugly and damaging. But for me at least, once I recognized that this was a "type," I'd get a gut feeling the first time I perceived someone turning something into a win-lose-- "ahh.. one of those. never mind." 2s generally reveal themselves in the way they listen or don't listen. They seek a sort of intellectual arm candy, believe their own value is somehow enhanced by association with something they think is cool. But they are either 1) devoid of curiosity about the substance of what you do, preferring to keep it at a safe distance or 2) devoid of curiosity about how how your career etc. relates to you (how you experience it, how it affects you). They deal with you as a cardboard cutout writer, lawyer, business owner, whatever you are, and prefer not to have their preconceptions disrupted. The red flag pops up when, for example, you spend a lot of time listening to them talk about what they do, but they change the subject if you try to talk about what you do, or insist on telling you how you should feel about things related to your world, etc. If you proceed farther down the path with them, they prove to have little tolerance for the inconveniences of hooking up with a smart/competent chick (such as time issues) and lay the resolution of them entirely at your feet. 3s see you as someone they can learn from as well as teach. They don't expect you to check your brain at the door when you submit to them (though they may take special pleasure in their ability to render an otherwise capable person completely incoherent [:)]) The tripartite scheme is no doubt an oversimplification... but I think it helped to weed out the ones who were most egregiously not on the same page. Revisions and amplifications to the model are very welcome. Thank you so much for your response! I have seen both ones and twos, sometimes in combo. Some of that behavior does not emerge for awhile. Anyone else have thoughts for how to weed out 1s & 2s ? Yes. Study me and then go out and pick me or one like me.[;)] Seriously...in one of sravaka's posts, she wrote the following: quote: I can think of one other group, which I've definitely seen a significant number of, although my social circle is heavily overepresentative of this. Those who are highly intelligent and secretly or not so secretly highly judgemental about those who aren't. Who often don't even have people they consider of average or lower intelligence as friends. That would be me, I'm afraid. I can not be round stupid people because they say stupid things and I wince. That's bad enough from a friend, but there's no way I'd consider a submissive who annoyed me a significant amoutn of the time. Even nastier, I kinda don't want to have to worry about introducing them to some of my similar friends. Who can be very welcoming. But only to intelligent people. And I can't be doing with being embarassed by a submissive I'm with... Basically.... When group 3 types go bad! Sounds like a perfectly good variation on type 3 to me. [:)] And actually related to something I considered putting in as a 4th possibility: the so-called "85th percentile problem." There are flavors and degrees of smart, strong, etc., after all... and they need either to match up or to complement each other. But I don't dare get into that in detail. BTDT, still scarred by the flames. In fairness... it occurs to me that a equivalently hasty typology of submissives who identify themselves as smart, strong, et al. might end up containing numerous unattractive categories too. CreativeDominant's very insightful and enlightening post above suggests some possibilities.... But since I probably belong in one or more of those groups, I'll not dig my own grave. Sure there are groups of submissives also. I've not sat down and taken the time to divide them up but I can give you some examples. Let's see if anyone here knows submissives of this nature. 1. The "I am a submissive and I am especially submissive to you but my work requires me to be dominant in nature so I will not be able to go into submissive mode automatically when I come home". Many of these types want you to understand and accept this. Funny but when they get to work, are they allowed that same latitude of time before their "work dominance" kicks in or does their boss expect them to come to work ready to go? 2. The "I am fully competent at work and social settings submissive but my brain just won't work when Master/Mistress tells me to do something hard". These are the submissives who handle extremely complex matters at work and who take a great deal of pride in being able to do so (and rightfully so) and yet, when a task is laid out for them...be it simple or complex (although oddly enough, many times it is the most simple task/protocol/ritual that throws them)...they have to have it explained from many angles and then will still question the why and how of it. 3. The "My last relationship left me feeling lonely and vulnerable and inadequate so I need someone to show me that I am indeed a worthy submissive and a good person submissives". These are the ones who take care and kindness and understanding and a willingness to listen and the ability to build their self-esteem again. While some of these end up in love with the dominant who thought there was a gem of a submissive there, sadly many of them end up back with the former dominant who tore them down in the first place "because he's changed and I didn't realize it until he changed but I'm still in love with him" OR they are grateful to the dominant who picked them up and rebuilt them but "yanno, I've realized I need a bit of the asshole and you are just too nice, Sir/Ma'am".

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875