RE: Arrogance

RE: Arrogance (Full Version)

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

Message

looking4princess -> RE: Arrogance (10/16/2009 7:17:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daintydimples Yes, anyone can be arrogant. However, I do think that there are too many females out there who hate men, and who use their supposed "dominance" as a tool to hurt and humiliate. In my mind, being petty, cruel and domineering, is not being dominant. It's just being mean. Unfortunately, anyone can buy a crop and say they are a femdom, and males subs will flock to them. A steady diet of online porn that portrays femdoms as petty and cruel doesn't help this situation. I think your second point is more on target than the first. I don't know what the evidence is to show that [too many females out there who hate men, and who use their supposed "dominance" as a tool to hurt and humiliate] You may be right; i just don't know. Your second point: The portrayal of petty femdoms provides a false template for those who are insincere and merely acting the role. So, they write arrogant Profiles and then bitch about all the players who respond failing to realise their Profiles are idiotic.

DesFIP -> RE: Arrogance (10/16/2009 7:22:29 AM)
Interesting point about the young femdommes assuming they have to act like the ones in porn. Plus the situation isn't helped by the fact that so much of the wanking email they get shows them that that persona is desirable. If you get overwhelming amounts of mail saying the writers are lowly worms who don't deserve her to spit on them (although they would pay for it) wouldn't you also come to believe that you had to act like that to have a partner? And the cycle then perpetuates from both sides, with both being unhappy but not knowing how to change it.

SaharahEve -> RE: Arrogance (10/16/2009 8:00:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordSpooner quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus The question is, of course... is/was the dominant actually in fact arrogant or is this simply different perspectives? It can be both. One is assigning arrogance as a personality trait and the other is making it a preference. quote: ORIGINAL: SaharahEve Arrogance is a subjective term. Depending on your personal disposition, you're either going to be bothered by an 'arrogant' person, or indifferent. Someone's perception of arrogance is another person's perception of confidence. Some view arrogance as vile, some view arrogance as hot. I disagree. Being arrogant is taking a "person's perception of confidence" to the abundance, to the extreme, if not to the point where it becomes a personality flaw. By definition - (as defined ala Google this morning) arrogance is the "overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors." The urban dictionary is far less kind in that regard -- basically assimilating arrogance to the levels of condescending, narcissistic, snobby, shallow and a whole host of inappropriate language that you can check out on your own. Even in the farthest bending incarnation of the definition -- the concept of "confidence" is no where to be found. While you may try to argue the "degrees of confidence" angle, it would be like comparing a glass of water to a lake..... I haven't given a definition of what arrogance is, what are you disagreeing with? That some people find arrogance hot and a sign of confidence and some see it as vile?

leadership527 -> RE: Arrogance (10/16/2009 8:12:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SJSubman I suppose the discussion I'd like to see is concerning the topic of arrogance.. or is it in fact arrogance? When does being dominant turn to something ugly? maybe it's a part of the d/s relationship that I don't understand? I suppose if one likes to be humilliated - that would be part of the relationship. I could be sending the wrong signals. One of my favorite quotes comes from a mentor of mine, "The difference between arrogance and self confidence is whether or not you are right." Like all such trite sayings, it is not accurate, but it does contain a lot of truth in it. But I dont' gather you're really talking about arrogance exactly... it sounds like this is also wrapped up with selfishness and a lack of social graces which aren't the same thing. I really cannot speculate on the why's of this. It isn't a dominance thing. I can only assume that... a) There are those who seek this particular flavor of dominance. b) There are those who like to be this way, and they hook up with the (a) group. c) There are those who mistakenly think that dominance requires this.

Lucienne -> RE: Arrogance (10/16/2009 8:25:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear there is arrogance and then there is arrogance. Racially speakin, it has been said that the Germanic and Dutch races have a natural arrogance just as many of the high born Brits have it bit in a somewhat gentler and even diplomatic manner. Arrogance based on inadequacies and lack of self-assuredness tends to be of the bullying type where is Arrogance based on a racial characteristic may be annoying for some and charming for others. Of course the arrogance of someone brought up in a high born home can swing either way which just demonstrates that arrogance itself is not a bad thing but how it is used or comes across. I love the nonsense that goes unchallenged in this place. I suspect, and certainly hope, that you are referring to matters of culture, not race. Yes, it has been said that German/Dutch/high born Brits have a "natural arrogance" i.e. superiority due to their race. The phrase "it has been said" disguises the fact that it is white supremacists who are the ones saying this. Or, you know, Hitler said it in the past. Culturally speaking, groups that are more reserved are frequently perceived as arrogant by more open cultural groups that interpret reservation as rejection. The interpretation of reservation as rejection is also quite common at the individual level, which is what I think is in play with what LaTigresse and others have noted. I think that arrogance, in terms of an evident sense of one's own superiority, is easily tolerable (and sometimes completely harmless) based on two things: (1) does reality match the arrogant person's sense of superiority; and (2) is the superiority of a kind that I value or respect. For example, if Tony Gonzalez wants to be arrogant about being one of the best tight ends in the history of the NFL, it's not going to bother me a bit. Because he is and because I've enjoyed watching him be. But if he tries to translate being a superior tight end into being a superior human being, well... that would be obnoxious and untrue. The second condition comes more into play, for me, with people who are arrogant about their material possessions. It is possible for someone to truly excel at the accumulation of material wealth - to be superior at that task - but I find their arrogance insufferable because I don't consider it a high value task. Yes, you're very good at that; no, you can't have a cookie. People who have arrogance based on a sense of aristocratic birthright aren't insufferable as much as funny to me.

hardbodysub -> RE: Arrogance (10/16/2009 9:16:57 AM)
quote: The phrase "it has been said" disguises the fact that it is white supremacists who are the ones saying this. Or, you know, Hitler said it in the past. Actually, I think you've got a little mixed up here. The phrase "it has been said" is indeed often used to disguise those doing the saying. However, your conclusion about the "who" in this case is mistaken. White supremacists don't call themselves and people on their side arrogant. They believe that their words and actions are justified by their natural superiority. It's their opponents who label the white supremacists as arrogant.

Arrogance -> RE: Arrogance (10/16/2009 10:13:24 AM)
Arrogance is a sign of being totally awesome! coughs.

mnottertail -> RE: Arrogance (10/16/2009 10:15:25 AM)
Yeah, lol, I was wonderin' when you'd show. Ron

LadyPact -> RE: Arrogance (10/16/2009 10:20:53 AM)
I was wondering if you'd see this thread, Arrogance. The thought of it made Me laugh. As to the OP, I have to agree with the posters who said if it's based in fact, it's not arrogance. I don't see anyone talking about their strengths in such a way when it is based in reality. If you're good at whatever it is, you shouldn't have to tone it down just because someone else doesn't have the same level of accomplishment as you do. That's their lacking, not yours.

IronBear -> RE: Arrogance (10/16/2009 10:21:33 AM)
To be even more correct the earliest I can find in my general reading is from the Victorian period but of course the British Empire was at it's highest and they were supremacists. I would however, ask Lucienne, seeing that: quote: People who have arrogance based on a sense of aristocratic birthright aren't insufferable as much as funny to me Just how much direct shoulder rubbing contact she has with such amusing folk? Literally just my natural curiosity asking, and yes i do agree but probably for different reasons.

Arrogance -> RE: Arrogance (10/16/2009 11:26:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I was wondering if you'd see this thread, Arrogance. The thought of it made Me laugh. Ha... yeah, when I saw the thread name pop up I wondered for a second if it was directed at me. But alas, my delusions of significance were merely delusions.

LordSpooner -> RE: Arrogance (10/16/2009 11:41:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SaharahEve "I haven't given a definition of what arrogance is, what are you disagreeing with?" You did say though: quote: ORIGINAL: SaharahEve "Someone's perception of arrogance IS another person's perception of confidence." (emphasis added) That's the part where it sounds like you're equating "arrogance" with "confidence..." Which is the reason why I offered that the concept of confidence doesn't rely on invoking arrogance.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Arrogance (10/16/2009 12:08:56 PM)
~FR~ Honestly, I'd think a lot of this is perceptual, on both sides of the kneel. Female dominants, in particular, tend to take on a caricature of domination that includes being brash, rude, pushy, and crass, not always because they -like- being that way, but often because they like domination, and have been conditioned by media portrayal and available examples to believe that that is the only way that a female dominant should behave. On the other side of the kneel, sometimes powerful individuals can be perceived as arrogant by those contemplating taking a position of deference just because they are inclined to be very direct and -very- certain of what they prefer. I have, on several occasions, been called arrogant because I have (and use) a rather extensive vocabulary. Individuals felt that I was "belittling" them because I chose to speak the way that I do. Now, is that 'arrogance' on my part? I don't think so, but who gets to decide? My companion is a -very-, -very- direct woman. She is blunt and very discerning, and she maintains high expectations of herself and the people that she is with. She's been called arrogant because she won't lower her standards and just accept whatever bone she's thrown. To me, that isn't arrogance, but as I said earlier, it seems to me that it is all in the side one rests on when observing the behaviors. Dame Calla

looking4princess -> RE: Arrogance (10/16/2009 12:17:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Interesting point about the young femdommes assuming they have to act like the ones in porn. Plus the situation isn't helped by the fact that so much of the wanking email they get shows them that that persona is desirable. If you get overwhelming amounts of mail saying the writers are lowly worms who don't deserve her to spit on them (although they would pay for it) wouldn't you also come to believe that you had to act like that to have a partner? And the cycle then perpetuates from both sides, with both being unhappy but not knowing how to change it. Yes, I agree. You make an excellent point. But the wankers keep on writing evidently, so I suspect they are not so unhappy that there is always fresh young Mistress meat to address, I'm afraid.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Arrogance (10/16/2009 12:19:33 PM)
quote: I disagree. Being arrogant is taking a "person's perception of confidence" to the abundance, to the extreme, if not to the point where it becomes a personality flaw. By definition - (as defined ala Google this morning) arrogance is the "overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors." The urban dictionary is far less kind in that regard -- basically assimilating arrogance to the levels of condescending, narcissistic, snobby, shallow and a whole host of inappropriate language that you can check out on your own. Even in the farthest bending incarnation of the definition -- the concept of "confidence" is no where to be found. While you may try to argue the "degrees of confidence" angle, it would be like comparing a glass of water to a lake..... My issue with this goes back to "who gets to decide if it is arrogance, situational, or simply style of presentation"? See, I can think that someone is arrogant, but my perception may be completely off the mark. Rarely will I ever -call- an individual arrogant, because it is my contention that what I perceive as arrogant is either (1) a defensive mechanism to retain one's dignity/confidence in a situation that threatens one's perception of self-worth or (2) a reaction by the observer to a style of presentation that is, in some way, incompatible with what xhe desires to associate with. Dame Calla

SaharahEve -> RE: Arrogance (10/16/2009 12:28:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SaharahEve I second your reply. Arrogance is a subjective term. Depending on your personal disposition, you're either going to be bothered by an 'arrogant' person, or indifferent. Someone's perception of arrogance is another person's perception of confidence. Some view arrogance as vile, some view arrogance as hot. People are always more than what you're seeing at any given moment, I don't think people should be threatened by a seemingly arrogant person. quote: ORIGINAL: LordSpooner I disagree. Being arrogant is taking a "person's perception of confidence" to the abundance, to the extreme, if not to the point where it becomes a personality flaw. By definition - (as defined ala Google this morning) arrogance is the "overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors." The urban dictionary is far less kind in that regard -- basically assimilating arrogance to the levels of condescending, narcissistic, snobby, shallow and a whole host of inappropriate language that you can check out on your own. Even in the farthest bending incarnation of the definition -- the concept of "confidence" is no where to be found. While you may try to argue the "degrees of confidence" angle, it would be like comparing a glass of water to a lake..... quote: ORIGINAL: LordSpooner quote: ORIGINAL: SaharahEve "I haven't given a definition of what arrogance is, what are you disagreeing with?" You did say though: quote: ORIGINAL: SaharahEve "Someone's perception of arrogance IS another person's perception of confidence." (emphasis added) That's the part where it sounds like you're equating "arrogance" with "confidence..." Which is the reason why I offered that the concept of confidence doesn't rely on invoking arrogance. You're right, it doesn't have to but for some arrogance is confidence regardless of whether the dictionary defines arrogance as being not. I may stand alone but I find the dictionary's meanings limited at times, e.g., it defines sadism as a psychological disorder (I imagine others may define it differently), or, it defines porn as having little artistic value, etc. I think the urban dictionary you mentioned defines golden showers as "a way of humiliation" - - I'm still waiting for it validate my perception by including "a way of spirituality". [:D]

looking4princess -> RE: Arrogance (10/16/2009 12:41:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I was wondering if you'd see this thread, Arrogance. The thought of it made Me laugh. As to the OP, I have to agree with the posters who said if it's based in fact, it's not arrogance. I don't see anyone talking about their strengths in such a way when it is based in reality. If you're good at whatever it is, you shouldn't have to tone it down just because someone else doesn't have the same level of accomplishment as you do. That's their lacking, not yours. Found this definition of arrogance: " proudly contemptuous: feeling or showing self-importance and contempt or disregard for others" Encarta World English Dictionary Also looked quickly at several other definitions that showed up in the search and they all seemed to have in common the concepts of "overbearing" pride or hubris. My thinking is that someone can discuss their own real, fact-based strengths in a manner that is not arrogance. But they are arrogant when they become too full of themselves beyond justified pride in accomplishments. Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods never had to boast of their accomplishments. They were not arrogant about what they achieved. The world knows. If you walk the walk you don't have to talk the talk. Mohammed Ali was arrogant imo because he was fighting against a racism that Jordan and Woods did not encounter, so his "show" of arrogance may be understandable. I do not know what his true temper was. If you are an outstanding talent and boast loudly about it you are an arrogant bore, methinks. Talent and accomplishment does not give you the right to use a megaphone, nor the need for one. If you are mediocre and boast about some imagined talent you are not arrogant, you are an idiot.

bliss4us09 -> RE: Arrogance (10/16/2009 12:52:12 PM)
I think I'd have to more about behaviors that you consider arrogant. Can you add some detail?

LordSpooner -> RE: Arrogance (10/16/2009 1:08:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SaharahEve You're right, it doesn't have to but for some arrogance is confidence regardless of whether the dictionary defines arrogance as being not. I may stand alone but I find the dictionary's meanings limited at times, e.g., it defines sadism as a psychological disorder (I imagine others may define it differently), or, it defines porn as having little artistic value, etc. I think the urban dictionary you mentioned defines golden showers as "a way of humiliation" - - I'm still waiting for it validate my perception by including "a way of spirituality". [:D] I agree in part as it's frequently noted that our dictionaries are limited and especially when it comes to applying a lifestyle concept in a vanilla vernacular. Except this wasn't a lifestyle-definition-mishap-gone-bad scenario as much as a disagreement on what arrogance actually means. So I guess the $64,000 question to ask you is then: how do you define arrogance?

porcelaine -> RE: Arrogance (10/16/2009 1:15:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: looking4princess If you are an outstanding talent and boast loudly about it you are an arrogant bore, methinks. Talent and accomplishment does not give you the right to use a megaphone, nor the need for one. If you are mediocre and boast about some imagined talent you are not arrogant, you are an idiot. yet you don't see the hypocrisy in your own statement above. who are you to define what is or isn't mediocre? how can this be measured? i would think your personal bias would be a factor in some regard. the very same way it is in relation to what is or isn't arrogant. have you ever asked yourself why the behavior is bothersome to you? i'd think that would have much greater merit than rendering judgment to a group of people that probably are too arrogant to care. [;)] porcelaine

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875