RE: Doormats

RE: Doormats (Full Version)

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

Message

sleepingbeauty2 -> RE: Doormats (3/1/2010 12:23:26 PM)
a doormat is easily stepped upon. I am not.

Icarys -> RE: Doormats (3/1/2010 12:25:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleepingbeauty2 a doormat is easily stepped upon. I am not. (standswithfist) Well okay then![:)]

Whiplashsmile4 -> RE: Doormats (3/1/2010 12:28:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth this slave thinks you should start a new thread, osf...to all the dominants out there who don't want control/authority...what exactly are they after, then? the responses could shed some light.[:)] im gonna write a song and call it "i wanna dom to be my doomat so i can tell him who i really am!" Don't worry, you just might be in luck, some guys have a three rule system just for your needs. :-P Talk about thread bleed now. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3083346

NihilusZero -> RE: Doormats (3/1/2010 12:29:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: osf quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Actually, all of them. you truly have no idea what you are referring too when you state all submissives are doormats. Not all dominants want control. Its that "all" or "none" theory to most of your posts that i object too. now I'm confused what is a dominant doing there if not to exercise some level of control? this slave thinks you should start a new thread, osf...to all the dominants out there who don't want control/authority...what exactly are they after, then? the responses could shed some light.[:)] His point is rather relevant, however. The issue isn't whether dominants want control or not, but rather how much control (in degree and amount). The entire concept of a D/s dynamic is moot without the element of control.

Whiplashsmile4 -> RE: Doormats (3/1/2010 12:36:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: osf quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Actually, all of them. you truly have no idea what you are referring too when you state all submissives are doormats. Not all dominants want control. Its that "all" or "none" theory to most of your posts that i object too. now I'm confused what is a dominant doing there if not to exercise some level of control? It's a bit like somebody who likes sex, and somebody that has a sexual addition problem. Compare that thought for a moment to Control.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Doormats (3/1/2010 12:48:34 PM)
quote: The entire concept of a D/s dynamic is moot without the element of control. No way! That would conflict with the results of 25 pages of this thread! The "entire concept of a D/s dynamic" is about word definitions. You have to make sure you carve out your rationalizations. The rationalized debate for the word 'doormat' has taken on value for some who, on the other hand, require 'acceptance' for their labels and word used. For example... Ignore the pedophilia references to 'daddy doms'. Ignore the fact that you can't include the word 'woman' in your name so your not "confused" with a subset of philosophical belief in a lifestyle framed around science fiction stories. From that foundation and expectation of complete 'lifestyle' 'community' acceptance and/or tolerance; pontificate how words used by others only have one definition - yours. "Control" or the ultimate authority of people having relationships is only legitimized by many if told in the first person. There is much less, third person acceptance. However it is really a good thing. Only insecurity would have you argue or feel "offended". Where as a laugh or smile response serves as a confidence builder, no matter how frustrating it gets trying to educate and inform. Please don't try to change this reality! Without being able to witness such insecurity or read such hypocrisy and rationalization on a regular basis; there would be no sadistic entertainment value provided by CM.

NihilusZero -> RE: Doormats (3/1/2010 12:53:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Whiplashsmile4 It's a bit like somebody who likes sex, and somebody that has a sexual addition problem. Compare that thought for a moment to Control. Except that the concept of addiction is a bit porous, particularly trying to relate it to relationship issues. My dominance in relationships is not based on "liking" it (I do, but it's not an active decision), it's based on the fact that that is how I gravitate when in a relationship. It's a personal trait. I also happen to seek out greater extremes on the control spectrum. There is no "problem" with control in any situation save the degree of non-consensuality. The amount of a specific thing being greater does not proportionally bring it closer to the realm of "problem". A dominant in a relationship who is not, to at least some degree, exerting control in the relationship isn't actually a dominant but just a relationship partner (and that's not a 'true-wayism' comment, it's a semantic matter of fact).

NihilusZero -> RE: Doormats (3/1/2010 12:56:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Please don't try to change this reality! Without being able to witness such insecurity or read such hypocrisy and rationalization on a regular basis; there would be no sadistic entertainment value provided by CM. [8D] Perhaps if you wrote an educational pamphlet as to how to become ironclad to the negativity wrought from the illogical and inane thinking that can often saturate the WIITWD community, we could all benefit from seeing it as sadistic entertainment all the time. [;)]

Whiplashsmile4 -> RE: Doormats (3/1/2010 1:23:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Whiplashsmile4 It's a bit like somebody who likes sex, and somebody that has a sexual addition problem. Compare that thought for a moment to Control. Except that the concept of addiction is a bit porous, particularly trying to relate it to relationship issues. My dominance in relationships is not based on "liking" it (I do, but it's not an active decision), it's based on the fact that that is how I gravitate when in a relationship. It's a personal trait. I also happen to seek out greater extremes on the control spectrum. There is no "problem" with control in any situation save the degree of non-consensuality. The amount of a specific thing being greater does not proportionally bring it closer to the realm of "problem". A dominant in a relationship who is not, to at least some degree, exerting control in the relationship isn't actually a dominant but just a relationship partner (and that's not a 'true-wayism' comment, it's a semantic matter of fact). It's one of those subjective things, it only is a problem when it really is a problem.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Doormats (3/1/2010 1:29:25 PM)
quote: Perhaps if you wrote an educational pamphlet as to how to become ironclad to the negativity wrought from the illogical and inane thinking that can often saturate the WIITWD community, we could all benefit from seeing it as sadistic entertainment all the time Top Ten Reasons Not To Write This Pamphlet: #10: A pamphlet requires the use of words, understanding the intent requires agreement on the definitions of those words. As prima facie evidence that isn't possible - I submit this thread. #9: It would be a pamphlet if the reading could 'head bob' to it. It would be 'one-true-way' dogma for those who disagreed. #8: A confident mindset can only be developed. It can not be taught. Once you had one, you wouldn't read the pamphlet. If you don't have one - you'd condemn the name of the pamphlet without reading it. #7: Enjoying "sadistic" pleasure requires a sadistic nature. #6: Not everyone in the world is a sadist and some of that "illogical" and "inane" posting come from sources seeking a response to their masochistic goals. #5: Without negativity, the lives of many people on CM would be empty. #4: Anything requiring the use of 'iron cladding' contributes to global warming. (I've already used up my 'Gore carbon offsets'.) #3: I don't want to be considered as 'Luther'; a 'heretic' to the very religion he loved in its most basic form. Similarly pointing out that the community has become as corrupted as it has became 'popular' would run the risk of becoming a 'fundamental' movement. #2: You have to have confident "ironclad" happiness in your life to be impervious to "negativity". A pamphlet can't provide it. And the #1 reason: As a 'dominant' I don't comply with anyone's request. If I came up with this idea on my own - maybe. However since its your idea - I can NOT submit and risk being a 'doormat' to your desires!

Whiplashsmile4 -> RE: Doormats (3/1/2010 1:31:18 PM)
Daddy not on par with Doormat Daddy - does not have the same negative connoctations Doormat - negative connoncations that are associated with real abuse, use and suppression of rights (was used in feminist movement even). Also, give the social movements in regards to helping people to no longer be doormats. Even for how to keep kids from being doormats of school bullying and cyber bullying. Now what Negatives are associated with "Daddy" as a stand alone word from the get go???? All words are not true Equal!! Damn I fucking Hate Relatism!! Fucking this amazes me how unequal shit gets treated equally, without accounting for any Emperical thought to measurement.

JstAnotherSub -> RE: Doormats (3/1/2010 1:32:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Whiplashsmile4 quote: ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth this slave thinks you should start a new thread, osf...to all the dominants out there who don't want control/authority...what exactly are they after, then? the responses could shed some light.[:)] im gonna write a song and call it "i wanna dom to be my doomat so i can tell him who i really am!" Don't worry, you just might be in luck, some guys have a three rule system just for your needs. :-P Talk about thread bleed now. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3083346 hahaha omg i was kiddin...

Mercnbeth -> RE: Doormats (3/1/2010 1:39:02 PM)
quote: Daddy - does not have the same negative connoctations Now what Negatives are associated with "Daddy" as a stand alone word from the get go???? From the get go Jaycee Dugard had to call her kidnapper/rapist Phillip Garrido "daddy". You think she was just participating voluntarily in age play with him for 18 years? quote: All words are not true Equal!! Damn I fucking Hate Relatism!! I totally agree! I hate relativism too!!

Whiplashsmile4 -> RE: Doormats (3/1/2010 1:54:06 PM)
If somebody is called a Daddy, there's hardly a negative thought about it. Being a Daddy ain't a social issue, unless somebody ain't being a Daddy to their kids. Okay there's Sugar Daddy's but come on that's not really so bad either, nothing realated to the treat of a human being that is really all the bad, abuse or where there a a victim and having no rights. Don't see any articles or books or people going around telling people "How not to be a Daddy". Being a Daddy is not a negative social issue, while there are social issues involved in being a daddy. It's about how to be a Better Daddy. Can't see any how to be a Better Doormat books out on the shelves. Strange, I watch TV news stories and such. Hell, even stuff on the Today show (that popular morning show) while engage upon the Doormat topic or use the doormat word, none of it very positive. Bizzare, not see the same thing regarding Daddy's. Perhaps Sugar Daddy gets tossed around a little here and there. But it's nothing that has much connected in the way of abuse, mistreatement, using, or supressing human rights. For being in a lifestyle, where we support the aspect of things being consensual and yeah where no true use and abuse happens. Shall we adopt Doormat or not? Sort of almost a contridiction or Oxymoron in itself. What are left to tell people.. "It's okay to be a Doormat as long as you're not a Doormat" (confusing contridiction) I'm not talking about using Doormat as a personal personification, pet name or for play! I'm talking about it being used as an Adopted BDSM term. Wanted to clarifiy before somebody else thinks I'm against that.

Icarys -> RE: Doormats (3/1/2010 1:57:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Daddy - does not have the same negative connoctations Now what Negatives are associated with "Daddy" as a stand alone word from the get go???? From the get go Jaycee Dugard had to call her kidnapper/rapist Phillip Garrido "daddy". You think she was just participating voluntarily in age play with him for 18 years? quote: All words are not true Equal!! Damn I fucking Hate Relatism!! I totally agree! I hate relativism too!! Aren't we all buying into it when it fits our needs? You included. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism Relativism is the idea that some elements or aspects of experience or culture are relative to, i.e., dependent on, other elements or aspects. Common statements that might be considered relativistic include: "That's true for you but not for me." "My truth is the only truth" "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." "All beauty is the same." "You can't judge other cultures by the standards of your own." "I get to judge cultures by my standards alone" If we didn't we'd all agree with one way of doing things when it comes to wiitwd and life in general for that matter. I like it to a degree. I mean I could say nothing is relative and begin passing out said pamphlets which of course everyone would say "Hey ya know..your right..let's do it this way" That seems to be what your saying.

Whiplashsmile4 -> RE: Doormats (3/1/2010 2:01:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Daddy - does not have the same negative connoctations Now what Negatives are associated with "Daddy" as a stand alone word from the get go???? From the get go Jaycee Dugard had to call her kidnapper/rapist Phillip Garrido "daddy". You think she was just participating voluntarily in age play with him for 18 years? quote: All words are not true Equal!! Damn I fucking Hate Relatism!! I totally agree! I hate relativism too!! Aren't we all buying into it when it fits our needs? You included. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism Relativism is the idea that some elements or aspects of experience or culture are relative to, i.e., dependent on, other elements or aspects. Common statements that might be considered relativistic include: "That's true for you but not for me." "My truth is the only truth" "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." "All beauty is the same." "You can't judge other cultures by the standards of your own." "I get to judge cultures by my standards alone" If we didn't we'd all agree with one way of doing things when it comes to wiitwd and life in general for that matter. I like it to a degree. I mean I could say nothing is relative and begin passing out said pamphlets which of course everyone would say "Hey ya know..your right..let's do it this way" That seems to be what your saying. Quick response, Relativism is good to a degree, however when it's over applied and over used and carried to extremes.. it tends to do more harm than good at times. Apply within reason, but don't apply using that as the only principal or view. That's my personal thoughts on it! Because we are do engage in relativism. Using that as a single focus can be bad. (in my opinion).

Whiplashsmile4 -> RE: Doormats (3/1/2010 2:08:49 PM)
Some people care more about relativism than they do the actual topic that's being debated. Basically they just want to debate about any fucking for the sake of kicking ass using Relativism. Sad but True. Even worse when two people engage in Relativism, it's one big fucking circles, feedback loop from hell! Like Fucking Listen to Jimi Hendrix Holding a Scream sustained Note for Hours on end.... Feedback loop hell. The topic and issue end up geting buried to death..

Icarys -> RE: Doormats (3/1/2010 2:09:24 PM)
quote: I will how disagree with your assement of the vanilla world, because our worlds are actually one in the same, given that we are a sub-culture to the culture we live in. We are a sub-culture to the so-called Vanilla world. Perhaps we can debate about at length this sub-topic, on another thread, or within reason on this thread. We are of course an offshoot but that doesn't mean we have to stay or play by the larger cultures rules entirely. Nor are we beholden to placate to that culture with our actions As you said you know some people call their partners "victims", that's okay without question. However, the word "victims" is not in a unique situation where it can become elevated outside of Play or for personal pet name calling. "Doormats" has the potential to become on par with "Little Girls", the "Victim" word does not. These two words are not as equal in nature as you think or believe they are. Again, please read Post 437 and notice what I wrote about sub-labels. It's highly unlikely that the word victim will become used as a sub-label for the type casting of a submissive. The same can be said regarding "fuckmeat". It might be highly unlikely but that doesn't say anything about anything but probability. One of the reasons (as I see it) why doormat poses being used as a sub-label for a type of submissive, is because of it's wide spread use in the so called "Vanilla" world (ironic). I think you meant poses a threat? If so..I won't be worrying about what Grandma Wilkes has to say about my desires lol

Icarys -> RE: Doormats (3/1/2010 2:23:38 PM)
quote: Quick response, Relativism is good to a degree, however when it's over applied and over used and carried to extremes.. it tends to do more harm than good at times. Apply within reason, but don't apply using that as the only principal or view. That's my personal thoughts on it! Because we are do engage in relativism. Using that as a single focus can be bad. Well there ya go..Sure too much may be well...too much Who decides what is too much though? (Grins) joking aside... I think how it's being used here is a good way..I mean we could go all day saying nay and yay for the term doormat but in the end aren't we all guilty of running those circles with just as much fervor as the next? The logic of this for me is it isn't hurting a single person if we did choose to add a box to CM for it..No more than any other term that's ever been used or might come into use in the future. Yes there are those that would use the vanilla world as a possible sufferer of something so we should tread with caution but I didn't come here so I could worry about people that don't follow my interest..cause if I did care I wouldn't be doing any of what I do to begin with. None of us were the history makers and shakers of the BDSM world that planted the original or slants on the words to begin with. I mean somewhere along the line the word slave became gradually accepted as good from it's original use. Get my drift?

Whiplashsmile4 -> RE: Doormats (3/1/2010 2:25:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys quote: I will how disagree with your assement of the vanilla world, because our worlds are actually one in the same, given that we are a sub-culture to the culture we live in. We are a sub-culture to the so-called Vanilla world. Perhaps we can debate about at length this sub-topic, on another thread, or within reason on this thread. We are of course an offshoot but that doesn't mean we have to stay or play by the larger cultures rules entirely. Nor are we beholden to placate to that culture with our actions As you said you know some people call their partners "victims", that's okay without question. However, the word "victims" is not in a unique situation where it can become elevated outside of Play or for personal pet name calling. "Doormats" has the potential to become on par with "Little Girls", the "Victim" word does not. These two words are not as equal in nature as you think or believe they are. Again, please read Post 437 and notice what I wrote about sub-labels. It's highly unlikely that the word victim will become used as a sub-label for the type casting of a submissive. The same can be said regarding "fuckmeat". It might be highly unlikely but that doesn't say anything about anything but probability. One of the reasons (as I see it) why doormat poses being used as a sub-label for a type of submissive, is because of it's wide spread use in the so called "Vanilla" world (ironic). I think you meant poses a threat? If so..I won't be worrying about what Grandma Wilkes has to say about my desires lol Probability! :-) I love that word. It does not deal with absolutes nor does it treat everything equal. highly unlikely does express a lot about probability to a certain degree, but only if what is wrote about touches upon common knowledge. No, as it is... "poses being used" without any threat in it at all. In regards to cultural stuff, we are a sub-culture. I've not seen them open up BDSMland or fantasy island yet for everybody to go live yet. Iracys!! I assure you that the word DOORMAT whenever you read it, hear it, or encounter it outside the context of BDSM does and will mean just what it means. Sorry to burst your bubble. This website only goes so far with the real world. So does BDSM as well.

Page: << < prev 23 24 [25] 26 27 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875