|
BitaTruble -> RE: One Dominants controversial thought on d/s (3/17/2006 1:41:36 PM)
|
quote:
Can you point to any particular inconsistency of a major kind in the totality of what I wrote, or are you referring to minor things that may be nothing more than typos or phrasing that could have been more clearly stated
You'll have to tell me if these are major inconsistency's or minor phrasing issues. They seem to be diametrically opposed to one another, but without knowing your intent, it's not for me to judge. I can only read the words which are written.
quote:
Her dominant pushing her gives her a feeling of being needed and loved for to her why else would he push her.
...because ...
quote:
She becomes an object to be used without thought, a vessel to fulfill his every desire.
quote:
i'd rather her act naturaly with out my influencing her
Submissives aren’t robots to be programed to constantly react the same way all the time.
this work trys to reach for the ideal, i acknowledged that submissives arn't robots
i want to see whats there, not what i want to be there
You brought this issue up several times, but then wrote this..
quote:
When he finds a piece he likes and feels will make suitable material he can shape into something desirable he takes it to his shop. The piece of driftwood is examined from all angles so that he may imagine the object that lies within yearning to be set free. That is his task to shape and set free the object of his imagination that lies within. ... When all plans have been made all preparations made ready, he begins to carve out his dream. The act of creation may be painful as material is carved away, almost an act of violence against the drift wood but this is done because its necessary to set free the object he desires.
But you also wrote this..
quote:
After he understands his desires he can create a mental clone of the submissive and perform thought experiments on her prior to expecting her to actually obey. In the start of the relationship he starts leading her gently in the direction he wants her to travel, observing how she behaved the same or differently than his mental clone of her. As he gains experience with her he fine tunes his mental clone of her, bringing her clone ever closer to her reality.
The dominant decides if the woman in question is suitable and tell her no if he decides she's not right. I'm paraphrasing your words here.
If he decides she is right, then he tweaks his internal clone of the woman who she is to fit with the reality of her, compromising his ideal for the real possibility of a relationship. I can buy that. However, to say he carves out his the ideal of his imagination when in fact, the reality sits already before him doesn't cut it with me as being something which is consistent. He either deals with the real woman or tries to mold her into his fantasy. It's not both, it can't be. It's one or the other. This sounds to me as if the dominant isn't sure of what their ideal is, but they certainly are willing to compromise on what it is for the sake of the relationship and getting a real woman with whom to interact. In fact, it seems to me, the woman isn't required to compromise at all if the dominant in question is willing to change and that, Sir, is not at all what you said in your very first posting. The compromise of limits is something which you wash away with the shores of a beach, mutable, changing, so it's not really compromising on her part if, as a dominant, you don't view such limits as lines or boundaries anyway. So, I don't see where the compromise comes in as it relates to her reality. It seems that in one breath you advocate that it's the submissive who compromises more than the dominant, and in the next you put all burden of compromise on the dominant in an effort not to see the submissive as a robot. Then, I'm in a tizzy, because you take that same woman and if her need is deep, going to levels beyond the scope of most, she's a doormat. On the one hand, it's ok.. even ideal to be objectified as a doormat, but not as a robot. An object is still an object. A doormat and a robot are no different, they just assume different shapes. Both are used for a purpose and both have no need of the 'thinking' woman. Speaking of the thinking woman..
quote:
He has to make her feel secure enough that she will open her thoughts to him, holding absolutely nothing back. For this to happen he has to be constant in his demeanor, never belittling or criticizing her thoughts. She must never feel that he disapproves of her thoughts.
quote:
The submissive woman must be taught and enabled on how to rise up and take control when the thinking woman has negative thoughts about what she's doing and the relationship with the dom. She must be empowered to replace thinking woman's negative thoughts with warm fuzzy erotic feelings that more realistically reflect her submission.
quote:
Submissive woman may want to leave the crayons out and thinking woman is always putting them back in the box, submissive woman likes to sleep nude and thinking woman wants to wear pj’s. Submissive woman wants to stay up late and party, thinking woman wants to go to bed early. One can see how these differences can lead to arguments and it will take the parent to step in an make them behave, get along.
quote:
The thoughtful dominant will realize what is taking place in his submissive and act to figuratively take the place of the parent. Part of his control is dealing with this inner conflict if it is present.
Now, this threw me for a major loop. On the one hand, you encourage the battle between the 'thinking' woman and the submissive with the desire that the dominant and submissive take sides against the part of the woman who thinks. ::read.. analyzes:: . On the other hand, you take on the role of parent figure to discourage the conflict which seems to me that you would advocate the submissive woman to embrace that part of herself and learn to live with it in harmony. Yes, to me, that's a major inconsistency in philosophy.
quote:
She must be empowered to replace thinking woman’s negative thoughts with warm fuzzy erotic feelings that more realistically reflect her submission
That doesn't jive to well with this..
quote:
Next we begin to lose the sentimentalists, romantics and the fuzzy wuzzys of d/s.
quote:
If submission is surrender then she should surrender to his desires and put her desires aside.
As far as im concerned every woman is entitled to fulfill her desires no matter how strong they may be.
quote:
"It is the submissive's right to decide if they are willing to face the pain of healing, and I believe that if healing is called for and desired, it belongs within the realm of professional counseling. I would not choose to put my Dominant in that position, nor does he wish to open that emotional can of worms. " (This was cut and pasted to understand the context of what is posted next.)
What if that is what the subbie really wants, shouldn’t she be entitled to it?
This is another major inconsistency. So for many posts it was never about what the submissive 'wants'.. it was always about filling the dominants desires. The submissive is an empty vessel, they must lose their desires, etc. But then, everyone should fulfill her desires no matter how strong they may be.. and if that's what they want shouldn't they be entitled to it..
Incorrect phrasing or contradictory philosophy?
quote:
And your right I did leave out much that would have better tied it all together, but that would really have sent the pc police into a frothing fit.
You might want to rectify leaving out so much that it changes the entire idea which you are trying to share. Who cares if the PC crowd throws a frothing fit? Just be prepared to defend your ideas with coherent rebuttals.
quote:
I hate book burners and love intellectual discourse and have not been too specific in my comments so as not to attack others directly or made no comment at all
quote:
Submission is the giving up of power and free will, and with that power goes the demand for respect. Anything else is just playing at d/s.
Don't you see that by advocating one true way, your way, and saying that anyone who doesn't do it your way is just playing at D/s, that you have, in fact, directly attacked others? That, Sir, is intolerance. Don't get me wrong. I, personally, have no problem with being intolerant. If I think something is wrong, then, for me, it's wrong. If I think someone is idiotic for the way they do things, it's not going to effect them if I think so. What I do, however, is accept it's their choice just as it's my choice to do things 'wrong' as well. Because they aren't wrong for 'me'. But a spade is a spade and an attack is an attack. By buying into some PC bullshit, you whitewash your own ideas and become PC yourself. Is that what you intend?
Just some things for you to reflect upon.. and, you did ask. :)
Celeste
|
|
|
|
