NihilusZero -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/4/2009 8:06:00 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CaringandReal So I was wondering whether to post in this thread or not and then I had to pee. In the bathroom I picked up a catalog from the reading basket. It happened to be the L.L. Bean Christmas catalog. (I don't know why these companies send me their catalogs. I never buy anything from them.) So I opened it at random. To page 55. And what do I see in a huge quotation against a lovely evergreen mat? "Is it really wrong to love a doormat?" After seeing that, how could I not, even against my better judgement, post here? ;) When the catalog god speaketh... Anyway, I think I am a doormat. I have always have thought that. A strong and sturdy doormat, to be sure, but that just means I can take a lot of scruffing, hold a lot of ...mud. So I try to take a lot of care with whose door I lie before, as pre-screening is my only protection. And someday I'll think it's the right time to take a chance, and I will, and then after that I will just ...accept what happens. Because that's what doormats do. :) The term is far too maligned. Des makes a keen point about how the term can often be used as some retro-active 'assertiveness' by a submissive who chose to stay in a relationship that was incompatible/unfulfilling...in which case the term is meant as a put-down of a hypothetical person whom the submissive has no intentions of becoming again. It is interesting to see the various interpretations of the word, though. To me, I'd say it describes an s-type who, once in a relationship, is completely, yieldingly pliable to the whim of the D-type (which, when worded that way, seems like something most D's would fancy, no?).
|
|
|
|