RE: stong, not a doormat ? (Full Version)

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



Message

SlayerZ -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/8/2009 5:36:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ

Personally I couldn't be doing with a submissive who was willing to submit 100%, with no flash of resistance or questioning, and someone who was willing to take anything that I thought of with both grace and humility.

And, from the other side, I'm not sure what the allure is to have a D/s relationships thrive on struggle. It seems to me that attaining the status of 'doormat', as an s-type, means you are at a point of complete comfort and trust with your D-type...unless you're being told to start 'fights' just to keep the fires stoked.

I tend to view things from an M/s position, rather than D/s, but an s-type arguing or disobeying my demands does not keep me in check; that just irritates me (I certainly encourage curiosity or logical discussion, but that's another issue). What does keep me in mental check is knowing that my s-type will follow whatever order I give. It places the onus on me to be as vigilant and critical of my own decisions as possible to ensure the best result because that responsibility (of us both/all) is yielded to me.

But, as I mentioned earlier, as opposed to some, I'm not the kind of person that finds his dominance validated by being able to enforce it upon the (momentary) rebellion of a sub/slave.


For me, a Dominant who is seeking a slave, or a submissive (or whichever pin you want to attach to the person in question this month) who is 100% submissive, completely and absolute, without any question, any query or reservation about the demands of their Dominant-no matter how cruel, crude or downright disgusting-do show some signs that they have resinents of self-esteem issues, for they are people who are unable to fenagle their power/control if they ever did come  face to face with the merest hint of adversity or resistance. Indeed, they would be lost little lambs if they came up against a submissive who dared to possess will, and a will to activate said will. (I'm not really lacking a thesaursus, I just thought it was a nice play on words.. and I was right.)

Of course, everyone is different, but in my personal opinion Doms that seek servitude, absolute and instant, are insecure creatures who suffer from fragile egos and even more fragile sources of dominance. For they are so scared and even petrified of what would happen if they didn't have such a sturdy and impenetrable padlock on the neck of their sub/slave, being starkly aware of their withering dominance, and as a direct result, they have to draw up the clauses and the rules from the get-go, as they are very much aware that they don't hold any sort of dominating longevity in their arsenal in order to maintain the status quo.

If I seeked a sub who was willing to do this, that and the other at the drop of a pin, it would simply bore me to tears. Honestly, if I wanted someone with no will of their own, or at least a semblence of it, then I would just bite the bullet and invest in a sex doll. But be careful, the doll may develop a leak, and you'd hear a noise of resistance from Polythene Paula. Uh-oh.

And the plus side of owning a sex doll is that you can release the air for easy overhead storage, or you could risk arrest for public indecency by buying it a ticket.

I'm not generalizing or anything, I'm aware that different people are looking for different things for different reasons. But this is my interpretation of Doms that NEED constance assurances that their needs will be dealt with in a speedy and a non quibble fashion.



MasterSlaveLA -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/8/2009 6:39:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ
Personally I couldn't be doing with a submissive who was willing to submit 100%, with no flash of resistance or questioning, and someone who was willing to take anything that I thought of with both grace and humility.


quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ
...in my personal opinion Doms that seek servitude, absolute and instant, are insecure creatures who suffer from fragile egos and even more fragile sources of dominance. For they are so scared and even petrified of what would happen if they didn't have such a sturdy and impenetrable padlock on the neck of their sub/slave...



What you've stated above:

1)  Has ZERO to do with whether or not a one is a "doormat" or not, as many on the bottom side of the slash SEEK this type of dynamic;  you're simply ignorant to a Total Power Exchange (TPE) dynamic where the bottom is expected to "submit 100%".

2)  Shows your complete ignorance to the TPE dynamic. Those engaged in a TPE dynamic would find YOU weak, "insecure", unsure -- and exponentially worse -- inconsistent for your failure to both create and maintain a "sturdy and impenetrable padlock on the neck of [your] sub/slave".  Bottoms of this sort would quickly learn they can not only easily walk all over you, but that both your words and expectations are meaningless.  You will have created an environment where there is no urgency in respecting your commands, wants, or desires;  leaving them to do as they please, when they please.  They'd lose all respect for you (if they had any at all), and would ultimately seek another who COULD provide the dominance, control, boundaries, and consequences they seek.

NZ was correct in stating below...

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
...I'm not sure what the allure is to have a D/s relationships thrive on struggle. It seems to me that attaining the status of 'doormat', as an s-type, means you are at a point of complete comfort and trust with your D-type...

...an s-type arguing or disobeying my demands does not keep me in check; that just irritates me... What does keep me in mental check is knowing that my s-type will follow whatever order I give. It places the onus on me to be as vigilant and critical of my own decisions as possible to ensure the best result because that responsibility... is yielded to me.



If you're not seeking a TPE dynamic, that's fine... but your sheer ignorance to this type of dynamic does not in any way support the grossly absurd conclusions you've arrived at (and stated here) with regard to those on the Toppy side of the slash that are engaged in this MUTUALLY DESIRED dynamic.  Again, for those involved in a TPE dynamic, YOU are the one that would be viewed as "insecure" for both your weakness and inability to control the one you supposedly own.  For lack of better word... a WIMP!!!





SlayerZ -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/8/2009 6:52:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ
Personally I couldn't be doing with a submissive who was willing to submit 100%, with no flash of resistance or questioning, and someone who was willing to take anything that I thought of with both grace and humility.


quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ
...in my personal opinion Doms that seek servitude, absolute and instant, are insecure creatures who suffer from fragile egos and even more fragile sources of dominance. For they are so scared and even petrified of what would happen if they didn't have such a sturdy and impenetrable padlock on the neck of their sub/slave...



What you've stated above:

1)  Has ZERO to do with whether or not a one is a "doormat" or not, as many on the bottom side of the slash SEEK this type of dynamic;  you're simply ignorant to a Total Power Exchange (TPE) dynamic where the bottom is expected to "submit 100%".

2)  Shows your complete ignorance to the TPE dynamic. Those engaged in a TPE dynamic would find YOU weak, "insecure", unsure -- and exponentially worse -- inconsistent for your failure to both create and maintain a "sturdy and impenetrable padlock on the neck of [your] sub/slave".  Bottoms of this sort would quickly learn they can not only easily walk all over you, but that both your words and expectations are meaningless.  You will have created an environment where there is no urgency in respecting your commands, wants, or desires;  leaving them to do as they please, when they please.  They'd lose all respect for you (if they had any at all), and would ultimately seek another who COULD provide the dominance, control, boundaries, and consequences they seek.

NZ was correct in stating below...

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
...I'm not sure what the allure is to have a D/s relationships thrive on struggle. It seems to me that attaining the status of 'doormat', as an s-type, means you are at a point of complete comfort and trust with your D-type...

...an s-type arguing or disobeying my demands does not keep me in check; that just irritates me... What does keep me in mental check is knowing that my s-type will follow whatever order I give. It places the onus on me to be as vigilant and critical of my own decisions as possible to ensure the best result because that responsibility... is yielded to me.



If you're not seeking a TPE dynamic, that's fine... but your sheer ignorance to this type of dynamic does not in any way support the grossly absurd conclusions you've arrived at (and stated here) with regard to those on the Toppy side of the slash that are engaged in a TPE dynamic.  Again, for those involved in a TPE dynamic, YOU are the one that would be viewed as "insecure" for both your weakness and inability to control the one you supposedly own.  For lack of better word... a WIMP!!!





Yeah. I'm not going to answer your post piecemeal as I have neither the time or the care.

So, what your suggesting is that I could be considered nothing more "insecure" and a "wimp" for the simple fact that I could assert my authority on a sub who wasn't merely a sex doll with skin? That tells a tale in itself.

Just because I'm seeking a female sub who isn't a braindead piece of meat, someone who does have her ideals and ideas of what she likes and what she craves, it in no way makes me less a Dom than the next one. I would very much like my sub to both enjoy serving me as well enjoy the service in itself. Am I a wimp for wanting there to be mutual satisfaction? Am I a wimp for not wanting to be a selfish little man who treats his sub as if her needs, wants and feelings don't matter a jot?

Yeah, perhaps we have different values.

And you can say what you wish about me, as well as my ideals (and you have) but let me remind you that I had the good grace to show humility and manners by stating that I was expressing my opinion. If you don't agree with it, fine, you don't have to agree with me. I don't know you from Adam, I couldn't care less if you agreed with me or not. Your opinion is quite inconsequential to me. If you think you're an authority on such matters, that you're some sort of oracle, then allow me to cordially burst your bubble; there is no rule book, there is no guidelines that everyone has to undertake, nor is anyone right or wrong. Everyone has their own morals, values, idea, ideals and they can be as fundamental or as lax as they care. So for you to have the gall and the arrogance to basically say that I'm wrong with my beliefs, I'm wrong with what I'm looking for and I'm also wrong for expressing said beliefs, you gentle Sir, are a very naughty boy.

Have a super day. [:)]



MasterSlaveLA -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/8/2009 7:14:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ
So, what your suggesting is that I could be considered nothing more "insecure" and a "wimp" for the simple fact that I could assert my authority on a sub who wasn't merely a sex doll with skin?



You really are quite clueless, aren't you?  You're quite cavalier in referring to others as "insecure", but don't like the REALITY that your type of supposed dominance would be viewed as "insecure" by those who enjoy/seek a TPE dynamic. 

Reminder of what YOU wrote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ
...in my personal opinion Doms that seek servitude, absolute and instant, are insecure creatures who suffer from fragile egos and even more fragile sources of dominance. For they are so scared and even petrified of what would happen if they didn't have such a sturdy and impenetrable padlock on the neck of their sub/slave...



Grow up already!!! [8|]


quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ
I couldn't care less if you agreed with me or not. Your opinion is quite inconsequential to me.


And yet... you still responded... so, ummm.... apparantly you DO "care".  I'm touched.

quote:


...there is no rule book, there is no guidelines that everyone has to undertake, nor is anyone right or wrong.


And yet... YOU felt perfectly comfortable to set the "rules" and "guidelines" and determined what is "right" vs "wrong" by referring to others who don't share YOUR view as "insecure". Hypocrite!

quote:


I had the good grace to show humility and manners by stating that I was expressing my opinion.


Oh... I see, so simply prefacing ANY stupid comment with "my opinion" somehow absolves you from appearing a dufus for assuming those who do not share YOUR view are "insecure".  Got it!  Well then, in "my opinion", you've shown yourself a complete twit.  Hey... I stated it was "my opinion", so it's A-O-K!!! [:D]





NihilusZero -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/8/2009 7:45:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ

For me, a Dominant who is seeking a slave, or a submissive (or whichever pin you want to attach to the person in question this month) who is 100% submissive, completely and absolute, without any question, any query or reservation about the demands of their Dominant-no matter how cruel, crude or downright disgusting-do show some signs that they have resinents of self-esteem issues, for they are people who are unable to fenagle their power/control if they ever did come  face to face with the merest hint of adversity or resistance.

Self-esteem isn't the issue, really. It's about the motivation to be a certain way.

Different people will appear to be "doormats" for differing reasons, some which may include psychological problems...in the same way that some of us who engage in WIITWD do so because of psychological problems.

Yes, being of the type of nature that makes you naturally submissive in most if not all facets of life means you will have to be rather well-equipped in the scruples department in order to decide on the worthy partner to accept in you life. It isn't the "submission" switch that gets flipped on for s-types of this kind when they choose to partner up, it's the "I choose to bring this person intimately into my life" switch.

This too, though, is different depending on whether the s-type is approaching the role in a "kink" way or in a "this is me" way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ

Indeed, they would be lost little lambs if they came up against a submissive who dared to possess will, and a will to activate said will. (I'm not really lacking a thesaursus, I just thought it was a nice play on words.. and I was right.)

The "will" to not let every interested party into bed with you from just a look across the room and a self-invitation , I don't think, is not the same as the "will" to refuse a interpersonal dynamic with someone.

Perhaps we still are viewing things from a "single s-type" position as opposed to an "already committed s-type" position, but the hypothetical scenarios aren't very different between the two, I think.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ

Of course, everyone is different, but in my personal opinion Doms that seek servitude, absolute and instant, are insecure creatures who suffer from fragile egos and even more fragile sources of dominance.

Which is an awfully funny armchair psychological conclusion since it is the Doms who choose subs who will question them that could more said to be insecure in their decision-making ability because they need partners who will critique their acts/choice because they are not confident enough themselves in making them properly.

As a D-type seekiing a slave, to advertise myself as wanting a partner who would rebel against my demands, I am either saying I like the conflict because it reinforces my feelings in the dynamic and because I may not be able to adequately 'proofread' my own decisions and need someone prompting me to do so via disobedience. A yielding slave, however, requires the D-type to be vigilant, competent, and self-assured in the choices made specifically because I'd be making an unresisted decision for two (or more) people.

Yet again, however, I distinguish between what I say above in the fact that I personally would still welcome curiosity and honest intellectual debate on the decisions I make from my slave...just that when I made my decision final, it would be a closed discussion in that respect.

Yes, we can imagine all sorts of evil-doers who would mishandle such a submissive partner in that situation. And there are people who wouldn't be good python owners. Any person in a relationship with a hypothetical villainous strawman will appear in poor light. I don't think "doormats", though, are any more prone to enter into such relationships than the average person.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ

For they are so scared and even petrified of what would happen if they didn't have such a sturdy and impenetrable padlock on the neck of their sub/slave, being starkly aware of their withering dominance, and as a direct result, they have to draw up the clauses and the rules from the get-go, as they are very much aware that they don't hold any sort of dominating longevity in their arsenal in order to maintain the status quo.

I'm sure there are D-types that do it for that reason. Just the same way that there are people of any persuasion doing things for any imaginable underhanded, non-consensual purpose.

Besides, if these sorts of baddies do net themselves such a slave, it isn't said slaves "submission" that's to blame...but the slave's 'judgment of character' meter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ

If I seeked a sub who was willing to do this, that and the other at the drop of a pin, it would simply bore me to tears.

Maybe I'd be too if I ran out of ideas for us to do or if I didn't encourage certain natural habits, hobbies and quirks in the slave that please me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ

Honestly, if I wanted someone with no will of their own, or at least a semblence of it, then I would just bite the bullet and invest in a sex doll.

"Wills" are overrated and over-advertised. I want a slave with a brain of her own. The suggestion of many folks is that they cannot dissociate the difference between the two.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ

But be careful, the doll may develop a leak, and you'd hear a noise of resistance from Polythene Paula. Uh-oh.

Do you have pets? Are they of the domesticated versions of formerly wild animals? Why bother with them and not, instead, go get a wild animal that will give you more reaction and reckless abandon?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ

And the plus side of owning a sex doll is that you can release the air for easy overhead storage, or you could risk arrest for public indecency by buying it a ticket.

I'm not generalizing or anything,

Of course not. You just spent a paragraph half-humorously comparing doormats to dolls because you're not "generalizing or anything" and it's just Backwards Day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ

I'm aware that different people are looking for different things for different reasons. But this is my interpretation of Doms that NEED constance assurances that their needs will be dealt with in a speedy and a non quibble fashion.


Again (since we're playing pretend-psychology)...what does it say of a D-type's self-assurance if xhe needs critiquing via rebellion when making a decision?



NihilusZero -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/8/2009 7:47:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ

So, what your suggesting is that I could be considered nothing more "insecure" and a "wimp" for the simple fact that I could assert my authority on a sub who wasn't merely a sex doll with skin? That tells a tale in itself.

Oh, stop. You started the "pseudo-psychology diagnosis" game and now you're complaining when it can be turned around to make you look silly too?



NihilusZero -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/8/2009 7:57:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncbabe

...to me a doormat is a someone who submits because they do not feel strong enough to oppose the dominant, not because they want to and it makes them happy to do so.

What if both are true for someone? Or what if the former is true specifically because the latter is?

It seems the best analysis we can get is that the more "doormat'-ish an s-type is, the better fit xhe is for a D-type who is counter-proportionally more self-regulating.

I'd say it was also important to point out that (at least in my interpretation) a "doormat" isn't devoid of the ability to discuss/ask-about a demand being made, just devoid of having the ability to veto it when the button is officially pushed (unless the s-type wishes to nullify the entire dynamic based on that demand).



ncbabe -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/8/2009 9:45:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncbabe

...to me a doormat is a someone who submits because they do not feel strong enough to oppose the dominant, not because they want to and it makes them happy to do so.

What if both are true for someone? Or what if the former is true specifically because the latter is?



I agree that it is possible for both to be true but for me the latter is what makes the difference.  I was referring specifically to people who submit despite desperately wishing that they had the strength not to because they are unhappy.



SlayerZ -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/8/2009 10:07:50 PM)

Seriously, you two, I can't be arsed to debate this any further.. or even read your responses. No offence.

We could go back and forth for as long as I could last, but seriously, I don't care that much.

It's obvious to me that this lifestyle is more serious to you two than it is to me, or will be ever be to me, and that's perfectly fine, honestly. I have much more in my life than this, and it's definitely a good thing that this is nothing too serious.

And just so that you know, you relegated yourselves to fail when the personal insults came into it.

Take care. [:D]



MasterSlaveLA -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/9/2009 12:04:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ

...this lifestyle is more serious to you two than it is to me, or will be ever be... and it's definitely a good thing that this is nothing too serious.



TRANSLATION:  "I couldn't get laid by 'nilla girls and thought the submissive girls would commence to humping the leg of any dolt who checked the Toppy box on a kink website.  So, I set my wii aside for 10 minutes, thought up a cool screen name (actually, I stole it from the band "Slayer"), took a goofy pic of myself and posted it (thinking CollarMe was MySpace), and tried to sound all uber Toppy and stuff to impress the girly-girls.  But DAMN... they've seen the SAME dork the 'nilla girls have and won't fuck me either... and DOUBLE-DAMN, I've now publicly outed myself to any girl who reads my posts that I'm a completely clueless, whining joke/liar who never took this dynamic (or any girl I could con) "seriously" (assuring any potential sub/slave who actually is "serious" about this dynamic that they should avoid me like the plague), so now I'm back to spankin' my pink-thing to cheezy anime while cursing to the wind about how all the OTHER guys are gettin' laid!!!"

[8|]






yummee -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/9/2009 12:49:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ

For me, a Dominant who is seeking a slave, or a submissive (or whichever pin you want to attach to the person in question this month) who is 100% submissive, completely and absolute, without any question, any query or reservation about the demands of their Dominant-no matter how cruel, crude or downright disgusting-do show some signs that they have resinents of self-esteem issues, for they are people who are unable to fenagle their power/control if they ever did come  face to face with the merest hint of adversity or resistance. Indeed, they would be lost little lambs if they came up against a submissive who dared to possess will, and a will to activate said will. (I'm not really lacking a thesaursus, I just thought it was a nice play on words.. and I was right.)



I'm sure there are M-types who are looking for someone willing to put up with all sorts cruel, crude and downright disgusting things.  There are also M-types who are seeking (or have) an absolutely obedient s-type because they have no interest in constantly having to explain, defend or reinforce for the sake of reinforcing.  There are many M-types who want or have absolutely obedient s-types who do not inflict cruel, crude or downright disgusting things on them.  It's not about "who can I get to put up with this shit," and more about "I don't want constant struggle and resistance on this.  If she's not interested in submitting, I'm not interested in proving (for the sake of proving) that I can make her."

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ

Of course, everyone is different, but in my personal opinion Doms that seek servitude, absolute and instant, are insecure creatures who suffer from fragile egos and even more fragile sources of dominance. For they are so scared and even petrified of what would happen if they didn't have such a sturdy and impenetrable padlock on the neck of their sub/slave, being starkly aware of their withering dominance, and as a direct result, they have to draw up the clauses and the rules from the get-go, as they are very much aware that they don't hold any sort of dominating longevity in their arsenal in order to maintain the status quo.



This has not been my experience.  The sort of Dom that you speak of here would not be able to hold a slave long, not even a doormat.  An absolutely obedient slave is certainly not an instant thing, either.  M-types seeking obedient slaves are generally aware of this or are weeded out quickly.  It is a process.  They are just stating up front that the goal is to find someone compatible, someone who would/will submit completely once that level is reached ... together.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ

If I seeked a sub who was willing to do this, that and the other at the drop of a pin, it would simply bore me to tears. Honestly, if I wanted someone with no will of their own, or at least a semblence of it, then I would just bite the bullet and invest in a sex doll. But be careful, the doll may develop a leak, and you'd hear a noise of resistance from Polythene Paula. Uh-oh.

And the plus side of owning a sex doll is that you can release the air for easy overhead storage, or you could risk arrest for public indecency by buying it a ticket.



Then don't seek one.  B has no interest in a girl who's always challenging or questioning his authority so that he has to constantly puff up and reassert himself.  Once the relationship is established and secure, once I know the man he is, that he has no intention of hurting or destroying me, why should he have to keep stomping his foot to get his way?  Why should this be a battle of wills?  I will admit to not having a will of my own.  My will is his will.  However, that doesn't mean I have no personality or brains or humor.  I'm not a blow up sex doll.  I am a secretary, organizer, housekeeper, cook, nurturer, entertainer and more. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ

I'm not generalizing or anything, I'm aware that different people are looking for different things for different reasons. But this is my interpretation of Doms that NEED constance assurances that their needs will be dealt with in a speedy and a non quibble fashion.



B doesn't NEED constant assurances that his needs will be dealt with in a speedy and non-quibble fashion.  He WANTS that in a slave.  He'd rather be slaveless than deal with endless questioning and explaining and drama.  He's capable of taking care of himself and is more than willing to do so again.  He's not willing to spend his life in eternal training mode.  At some point, the girl knows what he expects and has received all the explanations needed and experience with him to know where he's coming from.  At that point, she can either submit or not.  What's the point of submitting then opposing, questioning, balking and backing up?

My personality is such that I submit.  It's an instinctual reaction.  I know him and trust him.  I am very comfortable being owned by him.  I don't even think to balk at him, or question him, or challenge him.  Perhaps he's just not done anything for me to balk about.  It's not like he's told me to go rob a bank or anything.  I think it's more likely that we are just compatible, which I think is the foundation to most successful unions.  I don't need the stress or tension of having to put up a good fight ... to do what?  To prove to him that he's worthy of my submission?  He knows that.  We both know that by now.  So why pretend otherwise to stroke his ego?

Clarification:  "Absolutely obedient slave" is an ideal.  I am aware that we all make mistakes and no one is perfect. 




ranja -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/9/2009 4:22:20 AM)

i can take a lot of shit and i have felt like a doormat on occasion... it does sometimes feel good... if my ability for taking shit is appreciated it feels much better than when i feel i just serve without recognition... but then again sometimes it is good to battle with my own pride and selfishness that way aswell... but eventually i will need the praise otherwise i know from experience, this doormat's staying power will wane and i will walk before i am worn out.

I have heard of kneeling at the door way and fan your hair out and offer it for guests to wipe their feet on... this type of doormat service would be very hard for me to actually do... i would find it such a shameless waste of my hair... my hair is fine and soft... it took ages to grow it this long... if my Master would have so little value for this that He would waste it being ruined by guests wiping their muddy shoes on it i would be heart broken... i would much prefer to use my hair to dry bare feet after a foot bath... i might be a doormat in certain cicumstances, but i would sure try to broker me a deal to not have my hair ruined...



wisdomtogive -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/9/2009 6:29:07 AM)

Ranja, i could guess this might be you[image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m28.gif[/image] in regard to your hair:)..thanks for the chuckle. Am so glad i cut my to shoulder level..:)



Icarys -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/9/2009 6:40:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ

Personally I couldn't be doing with a submissive who was willing to submit 100%, with no flash of resistance or questioning, and someone who was willing to take anything that I thought of with both grace and humility.

And, from the other side, I'm not sure what the allure is to have a D/s relationships thrive on struggle. It seems to me that attaining the status of 'doormat', as an s-type, means you are at a point of complete comfort and trust with your D-type...unless you're being told to start 'fights' just to keep the fires stoked.

I tend to view things from an M/s position, rather than D/s, but an s-type arguing or disobeying my demands does not keep me in check; that just irritates me (I certainly encourage curiosity or logical discussion, but that's another issue). What does keep me in mental check is knowing that my s-type will follow whatever order I give. It places the onus on me to be as vigilant and critical of my own decisions as possible to ensure the best result because that responsibility (of us both/all) is yielded to me.

But, as I mentioned earlier, as opposed to some, I'm not the kind of person that finds his dominance validated by being able to enforce it upon the (momentary) rebellion of a sub/slave.


Good post.

All of that post pretty much hits the nail on the head for me.



SlayerZ -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/9/2009 7:32:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ

...this lifestyle is more serious to you two than it is to me, or will be ever be... and it's definitely a good thing that this is nothing too serious.



TRANSLATION:  "I couldn't get laid by 'nilla girls and thought the submissive girls would commence to humping the leg of any dolt who checked the Toppy box on a kink website.  So, I set my wii aside for 10 minutes, thought up a cool screen name (actually, I stole it from the band "Slayer"), took a goofy pic of myself and posted it (thinking CollarMe was MySpace), and tried to sound all uber Toppy and stuff to impress the girly-girls.  But DAMN... they've seen the SAME dork the 'nilla girls have and won't fuck me either... and DOUBLE-DAMN, I've now publicly outed myself to any girl who reads my posts that I'm a completely clueless, whining joke/liar who never took this dynamic (or any girl I could con) "seriously" (assuring any potential sub/slave who actually is "serious" about this dynamic that they should avoid me like the plague), so now I'm back to spankin' my pink-thing to cheezy anime while cursing to the wind about how all the OTHER guys are gettin' laid!!!"

[8|]






See, there you go again with the petty insults. Tell me, can you actually engage without making it a personal slight? A goofy pic? Yeah, alright, you're increasingly making yourself look silly. You're in your 40/50 (I presume - although your insults would suggest that you're prepubescent) and the best you can come up with is to aim a slight at my picture? Yikes.

You post a pic and we can contrast and compare.

I love your translation, it's very amusing and not very accurate. By "not very accurate" I'm actually being kind to you, because none of your quesswork is correct. Assuming what people are like, making assumptions about what they are seeking and what their life is like is an extremely risky business, mainly because if you're incorrect in any of the instances then you'll love like a fool.

As it so happens, if a Dom (or so called) is seeking a sub who wouldn't say "boo to a goose" and is completely and fundamentally subserviant then aren't those the ones who in your lovely phrasing "couldn't get laid by a 'nilla woman" - There's a lot to be said about people who deflect their own lives onto others, not that I'm suggesting that you couldn't get laid by a 'nilla woman. No, of course I'm not saying that. But I get the impression that you would be somewhat jilted by a female who dared to utter a word in which they had no prior permission, and I'm guessing you took this into the vanilla world, and as a direct result of this your face was probably slapped so much that people just got the impression that you were permanently apple-cheeked. My guess is that you crawled - red cheeked and all - into the world of "BDSM" with your "Oh poo! I'm unable to perpetually control a woman with my own manly authority, and as a result I'm unable to get my end away... I KNOW! I'll, I'll spout a load of tripe about "A power dynamic relationship," like it means a damn, I'll drone on and on about wanting to train the mind, body, and soul of the person with whom I choose to train (Translation: I'll cow and wear down the submissive who answers my mass-message, which I've sent 100+ times), but in actually fact I'll be conditioning my subject into being nothing but a docile, cowed, faint-hearted and highly-stricken, scared slave.

If you live in glass houses, mate.

And not that I have to explain myself to you, but I'll have to know that I had the same girlfriend for a decade (Ended a 4 years ago) so your "can't get a 'nilla girl" is rather laughable. I'm very comfortable and happy with my life, thank you for being concerned. [:)]

And as it happens, I've had encounters and entered deep dialogue with female subs who can understand and connect with my ideals. Perhaps it's a third generation femanist thing, they CHOOSE to submit and yet they retain their wildness and wiliness. Is this a new concept for you?

Listen, mate, I'm seeking something in which you don't understand. I'm seeking something that is so far out of your narrow-minded head that you have reached for the insults and the instant conclusion that I'm a fraud. What's with the anger? Not everyone wants the things that you desire, not everyone is seeking to obtain what you have/want. I think that I've pegged you quite well, you with your "slave" and that's wonderfully fine. All the best to you and to her. But if I were seeking your ideals then I'd probably just bite the bullet (quite literally) So, you deem me a fake for daring to want something for which you're frankly unable to comprehend? You're showing startling arrogance and small-smindedness for someone so mature.

But yeah, keep up the insults, there's no chance of me taking the bait. [:)]

Also, no idea why you're making parts of my text big. Do you wear glasses? And the band "Slayer" ? Yeah, not so much into thrash metal, mate. Another hit and a miss! This isn't your day.

Do you honestly think that my intentions are to procure a submissive who frequents this website? I can categorically deny any such a thing. This is just a website that I'm using for research, of course I'm into BDSM, but I'm not holding out much hope of procuring a sub from this place. For starters, I'm way too busy to entertain and maintain a relationship, in any guise. If I did want to obtain a sub from this place then I'd do what the rest of the Doms do: I'd frantically send mass messages out to everyone with the slightest semblence of submissive nature.

PS. You can reply to this but I will not waste any more of my time on the likes of you.



breatheasone -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/9/2009 7:36:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wisdomtogive

Ranja, i could guess this might be you[image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m28.gif[/image] in regard to your hair:)..thanks for the chuckle. Am so glad i cut my to shoulder level..:)

Hair looks great ...too bad the pic is so hazy, its hard to see.



RCdc -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/9/2009 8:04:42 AM)

Hello Slayer
I am going to stick my nose in.[;)]
I am going to hazzard is that the problem with the responses you have had is due to the fact that you made (what might be seen as) personal attacks on a group of people and then have gone on to complain that people are using personal insults on you.

By your assertion (that's my favourite word of the month) - I have no will and I do not say boo to a goose.  Now I don't go around scaring animals(I won't say defensless because I have seen geese on the attack!) - but I can assure you that I do have a pretty stunning will and I can pretty much stand my own ground.  Master is pretty much the opposite of what you describe - apart from being fragile - he would be the first to admit he has a fragile side.  Masters have feelings too you know, particularly when it comes down to caring for their property.

Equating doormat with the inability to be wild and creative is your first error.  Equating it with a lack of will is another.  We aren't some sort of dull haired, sterotypical mousey librarian types who bustle around never being acknowledged.  We don't necessarily have self esteem issues either - I mean, I know I am fabulous and those others - such as beth (whom I have had the great blessing of meeting) - whom also may identify with such a label are far from the cowering faint hearted slave you are trying to portray in your generalisations.  (Notice I left out scars - frankly, I haven't met a person yet, slave or otherwise who doesn't have at least one of them).

Of course everyone has - as you put it - their own 'ideals'.  And you are seeking something that is enirely your creation - but to belittle a stereotype that you have set up in your own head as you did and then whine when someone sterotypes you is a little - hypocritical?  or ironic - is it not?

Ahhhh, but then... irony is my thing... as people know.[:D][;)]

the.dark.



SlayerZ -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/9/2009 8:34:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Hello Slayer
I am going to stick my nose in.[;)]
I am going to hazzard is that the problem with the responses you have had is due to the fact that you made (what might be seen as) personal attacks on a group of people and then have gone on to complain that people are using personal insults on you.

By your assertion (that's my favourite word of the month) - I have no will and I do not say boo to a goose.  Now I don't go around scaring animals(I won't say defensless because I have seen geese on the attack!) - but I can assure you that I do have a pretty stunning will and I can pretty much stand my own ground.  Master is pretty much the opposite of what you describe - apart from being fragile - he would be the first to admit he has a fragile side.  Masters have feelings too you know, particularly when it comes down to caring for their property.

Equating doormat with the inability to be wild and creative is your first error.  Equating it with a lack of will is another.  We aren't some sort of dull haired, sterotypical mousey librarian types who bustle around never being acknowledged.  We don't necessarily have self esteem issues either - I mean, I know I am fabulous and those others - such as beth (whom I have had the great blessing of meeting) - whom also may identify with such a label are far from the cowering faint hearted slave you are trying to portray in your generalisations.  (Notice I left out scars - frankly, I haven't met a person yet, slave or otherwise who doesn't have at least one of them).

Of course everyone has - as you put it - their own 'ideals'.  And you are seeking something that is enirely your creation - but to belittle a stereotype that you have set up in your own head as you did and then whine when someone sterotypes you is a little - hypocritical?  or ironic - is it not?

Ahhhh, but then... irony is my thing... as people know.[:D][;)]

the.dark.


Hello. [:)]

Thank you for that semi-nice response. [;)]

Now, it wasn't my intention to insult or to belittle or to stigmatise a certain block of people - I certainly didn't mean to do any of that. Nor was it my intention to insinuate that my interputations were sacrosanct or some holy parchment that shouldn't be questioned or percieved to be erroneous.

I was giving my honest opinion about the question at hand. I wasn't attacking anyone, I wasn't looking for an argument and I certainly wasn't trying to push my agenda onto others. If the person with whom I've been in dialogue with conveys their honest opinion then that's perfectly fine and justifying, although, I will not accept personal attacks, nor will I stand idly by as my intergity is being tainted.

If someone wants to disagree with me, fine, you're free to do so, but don't do so by pouring scorn on my picture and making inuendo about my intergity. If you're going to crawl to such depths then at least do it to the person's face, doing it sitting behind a computer, with the atlantic as a buffer is rather cowardly.



RCdc -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/9/2009 9:17:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlayerZ
Hello. [:)]

Thank you for that semi-nice response. [;)]


You are welcome - although the word 'nice' makes me cringe... I'll say that is probably not my favourite word of the month.[:D]

quote:

Now, it wasn't my intention to insult or to belittle or to stigmatise a certain block of people - I certainly didn't mean to do any of that.

That is fair enough... but I do hope that you can see how words can be taken and whilst you may not intended it, it certainly came across as very personal and understandable that some might respond aggressively.
quote:

Nor was it my intention to insinuate that my interputations were sacrosanct or some holy parchment that shouldn't be questioned or percieved to be erroneous.

Ah, well I got that bit - else I wouldn't have come as a shining example of the opposite example you gave of said doormat (I'm trying to lighten the atmosphere in the room - work with me here[:D])

quote:

I was giving my honest opinion about the question at hand. I wasn't attacking anyone, I wasn't looking for an argument and I certainly wasn't trying to push my agenda onto others. If the person with whom I've been in dialogue with conveys their honest opinion then that's perfectly fine and justifying, although, I will not accept personal attacks, nor will I stand idly by as my intergity is being tainted.

Of course not - I just hope that you can see that as you feel tarnished, so those who identify as doormats whom you called 'lambs', 'without will', 'fainthearted' etc and dominants who love and cherish them to be 'fragile', 'lacking ego' and 'petrified' may feel their integrity equally tarnished.  I am not trying to rub salt into gapping wounds, btw, just offer something to think about.

quote:

If someone wants to disagree with me, fine, you're free to do so, but don't do so by pouring scorn on my picture and making inuendo about my intergity. If you're going to crawl to such depths then at least do it to the person's face, doing it sitting behind a computer, with the atlantic as a buffer is rather cowardly.

I agree and you will find that many others would also.  But also be aware that if people feel slighted, that sometimes the reaction is to return in kind.  It's not pretty... it's not 'nice' - but neither is it pleasent to be reduced to sex doll in an analagy - well unless it's you thang of course...[:D][;)]

the.dark.



wisdomtogive -> RE: stong, not a doormat ? (12/9/2009 10:28:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: breatheasone

quote:

ORIGINAL: wisdomtogive

Ranja, i could guess this might be you[image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m28.gif[/image] in regard to your hair:)..thanks for the chuckle. Am so glad i cut my to shoulder level..:)

Hair looks great ...too bad the pic is so hazy, its hard to see.



Thanks breatheasone...David Sir will be here next month and he already told me he would take a picture of me for my profile. My eyes are blurring..chalk it up to old age:)



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.054688E-02