RE: If You Love Your Doormat...

RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (Full Version)

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

Message

leadership527 -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 9:35:08 PM)
Carol is a naturally submissive woman... she pretty much submits to the whole world. Insofar as I understand the pejorative word "doormat", she is it. She offers me that submission in ways that astonish me... ways which allow me to not simply trespass over her boundaries, but in fact tell her what her boundaries are. The goal is not for me to give her commands which she dislikes and have her obey. The goal is for her to like, de facto, any command I give. My love for my wife is an intrinsic part of who I am. It does not impede me. It IS me. It does not get in the way of my goals... it IS my goal... my only really worthwhile goal. It is the best part of me. I do not tread at all on her. Rather, she and I are engaged in a wondrous journey together... a journey of commitment... of giving... of agreeing that our relationship is bigger and more important than either of our "selves". Anything else would not be... well... me. And it would certainly not do honor to the person who is, in all the world, the most important person to me... yes... even moreso than myself. Make of that what you can. I'm not sure it really answers your question.

tazzygirl -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 9:42:04 PM)
Do you expect the same amount of "give" towards anyone that she "gives" to you?

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 9:47:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl i gave my definition. i think i was quite clear in that. TPE is not the same, its a consensual act... I suppose that's where we differ, as I believe one CAN CONSENT to a "doormat" dynamic. The difference being, they simply do not see themselves as a "doormat", where others may. Rather, they simply view themselves as another's property, to be done with as their owner pleases... and would never think to make "excuses for not obeying", as disobedience is neither an option or thought. Thanks for the reply, btw! [:)]

tazzygirl -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 9:49:56 PM)
If one consents to a "doormat dynamic" then one can remove said consent. See the difference? when you say doormat dynamic, i see... bdsm play. no, im not demeaning it, but i see the dynamic as between two people.. and the doormat im speaking about isnt just between the two, but between the doormat and everyone they encounter.

jujubeeMB -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 10:09:19 PM)
From where I'm standing, you can't be a doormat if you can say no to anyone at any point. So we're only talking about the people who will consent to anything at all times, from doing whatever their friends want to do at all times to getting on their knees for anyone who tells them to. If you can describe yourself as such, and are happy with that full definition, then I suppose you should be able to live your life exactly as you please. If you protest the broadness of that definition, well, you're not a doormat, because you're standing up for yourself [;)] Honestly, I can't understand why anyone would want to be a doormat, because you're essentially having to sit there and hope a good person comes along to dominate you. If an abusive, cruel, fake Dom comes along, you won't be able to say no to him. However, using the word for humiliation purposes could be fun (or even allowing yourself to become a "doormat" after you've met the Dom of your dreams, when it's safe). I don't know. I'm really the least doormat-y person I've ever met, so maybe this is just beyond my comprehension as a successful way to be.

NihilusZero -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 10:09:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl On this i have to disagree. a doormat doesnt consensually enter anything. they have no resistence to anything, agree to everything, and it doesnt matter who tells them. doormats are lead, not just by one person, but by everything around them. they often suffer emotionally, physically and psychologically. doormats do not make decisions, they merely are... they just do as they are told, regardless of who tells them. So, by your definition, doormats are devoid of actually being able to prioritize value in their lives? I say this because I think that the qualities most would consider inherent to being a doormat can still exist in conjunction with the natural human ability to value some things more than other. At the point that a doormat actually has a partner, it strikes me that the partner's wishes actually become paramount, nullifying contradictory wishes by others. If doormats are so because they actually want to please, I cannot imagine a situation in which they would risk displeasing their top priority. That may mean they might perhaps suffer internal turmoil while having not acquiesced to the request of another who is not their partner, but I don't think it actually completely erases their ability for prioritization.

NihilusZero -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 10:13:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jujubeeMB Honestly, I can't understand why anyone would want to be a doormat, because you're essentially having to sit there and hope a good person comes along to dominate you. If an abusive, cruel, fake Dom comes along, you won't be able to say no to him. safe). 1) There are no "abusive, cruel, fake" doms. Just doms that desire a different dynamic than that in which you'd be happily fulfilled. 2) I don't think that "wanting to be a doormat" is the issue here. It's the honest assessment by some that they happen to be a doormat or have doormatish qualities and finding ways to be able to embrace that while still remaining safe (whatever "safe" happens to mean to them).

juliaoceania -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 10:18:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl If one consents to a "doormat dynamic" then one can remove said consent. See the difference? when you say doormat dynamic, i see... bdsm play. no, im not demeaning it, but i see the dynamic as between two people.. and the doormat im speaking about isnt just between the two, but between the doormat and everyone they encounter. Hun, I am only saying this because I really like your posts... you are talking to people that own a different dictionary than you do.. they do not define "consent" or "abuse" the same way as you do... before one can debate with anyone they have to agree on definitions... and that just isn't happening in this thread

tazzygirl -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 10:25:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl On this i have to disagree. a doormat doesnt consensually enter anything. they have no resistence to anything, agree to everything, and it doesnt matter who tells them. doormats are lead, not just by one person, but by everything around them. they often suffer emotionally, physically and psychologically. doormats do not make decisions, they merely are... they just do as they are told, regardless of who tells them. So, by your definition, doormats are devoid of actually being able to prioritize value in their lives? I say this because I think that the qualities most would consider inherent to being a doormat can still exist in conjunction with the natural human ability to value some things more than other. At the point that a doormat actually has a partner, it strikes me that the partner's wishes actually become paramount, nullifying contradictory wishes by others. If doormats are so because they actually want to please, I cannot imagine a situation in which they would risk displeasing their top priority. That may mean they might perhaps suffer internal turmoil while having not acquiesced to the request of another who is not their partner, but I don't think it actually completely erases their ability for prioritization. And this is where you are trying to redefine the term to suit your own purposes. A doormat has no boundaries. none. zip. nada. they do as told, when told, by whomever told them, regardless. And, yes, i have seen doormats who, regardless of their partners wishes, have gone against what their partner wanted to obey someone else. Its that moment of pleasure they find so thrilling. Its the... oh Master, was going to come straight home, but the Boss needed me to do this and that. and you know how he gets if i say no, so of course i couldnt say no, i had to do what he said.... their belief is that no one can be disappointed in them, they can say no to no one. When they utter the word.. no... even as a boundary set by their owner... they are no longer a doormat to the world. Perhaps to him, then its a personal doormat... but not to the world.

NihilusZero -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 10:25:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania they do not define "consent" or "abuse" the same way as you do... before one can debate with anyone they have to agree on definitions... and that just isn't happening in this thread Well, "consent" is pretty clear, even amongst the most variable definitions. It's determined by the willing (uncoerced) decision of the individual. "Abuse", on the other hand, is kind of an empty term. It slightly resembles "consent" in that it too is brought to life by the individual, but it does require a certain degree of greater consistency. A partner into rape play who consequently has a bad break-up with a partner does not get to retroactively recategorize every instance of their sexual escapades as "abuse". It's more of a transitory thing. I don't think the definitions are that hard to come by if we try to analyze what they mean in general as opposed to what they mean for us.

tazzygirl -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 10:26:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: jujubeeMB Honestly, I can't understand why anyone would want to be a doormat, because you're essentially having to sit there and hope a good person comes along to dominate you. If an abusive, cruel, fake Dom comes along, you won't be able to say no to him. safe). 1) There are no "abusive, cruel, fake" doms. Just doms that desire a different dynamic than that in which you'd be happily fulfilled. 2) I don't think that "wanting to be a doormat" is the issue here. It's the honest assessment by some that they happen to be a doormat or have doormatish qualities and finding ways to be able to embrace that while still remaining safe (whatever "safe" happens to mean to them). Google "Slavemaster"... "Kansas City"... then tell me that again, please.

tazzygirl -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 10:28:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl If one consents to a "doormat dynamic" then one can remove said consent. See the difference? when you say doormat dynamic, i see... bdsm play. no, im not demeaning it, but i see the dynamic as between two people.. and the doormat im speaking about isnt just between the two, but between the doormat and everyone they encounter. Hun, I am only saying this because I really like your posts... you are talking to people that own a different dictionary than you do.. they do not define "consent" or "abuse" the same way as you do... before one can debate with anyone they have to agree on definitions... and that just isn't happening in this thread true julia its not abuse if one consents to the act consent is agreement if one agrees to a doormat dynamic.. one is not a doormat because consent can be taken away i really dont see the confusion... unless someone wishes to be confused

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 10:29:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl If one consents to a "doormat dynamic" then one can remove said consent... Yes and no... "consensual non-consent". quote: ...and the doormat im speaking about isnt just between the two, but between the doormat and everyone they encounter. Fair enough... when I refer to a "doormat", it's under the guise of a M/s, TPE "doormat" dynamic. I get what you're stating, though.

juliaoceania -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 10:31:08 PM)
quote: "Abuse", on the other hand, is kind of an empty term. It slightly resembles "consent" in that it too is brought to life by the individual, but it does require a certain degree of greater consistency. A partner into rape play who consequently has a bad break-up with a partner does not get to retroactively recategorize every instance of their sexual escapades as "abuse". It's more of a transitory thing. Spoken like someone who probably has never endured abuse... I have endured nonconsensual abuse... and I guess that is what makes it abuse, there wasn't consent. Abuse is a straightforward concept... it is really the most straightforward concept that we have thus far covered... Doormats are abused people. They do not consent to this abuse, even though they put up with it... I know, I was a doormat too. I have made no secret of the fact my ex husband hit me... even when I was pregnant with his child, so yes, I know what a doormat is, I know what abuse is, and I know what consent it... Now if people wanna identify themselves with that, it isn't any skin off my nose, I really do not care, but these words have meaning, and especially when it comes to the word abuse, one shouldn't muddy the waters.

NihilusZero -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 10:33:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And this is where you are trying to redefine the term to suit your own purposes. Not at all. That's why I began the post with a question and posited thoughts based on a different contention dealing with that question. Do you define "doormat" as someone devoid of the ability to make priority value assessments? I'm not trying to redefine any term, but trying to engage in discussions that make each of us think about how we have defined the term for ourselves and whether we think it merits adjustments or not. There is no right or wrong answer here. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl A doormat has no boundaries. none. zip. nada. they do as told, when told, by whomever told them, regardless. And, yes, i have seen doormats who, regardless of their partners wishes, have gone against what their partner wanted to obey someone else. Its that moment of pleasure they find so thrilling. This too is interesting. The suggestion you are making is that doormats are actually, in the end, the ultimate hedonists, catering only to their desire to obey the commands of others. Also, this would substantiate your suggestion that doormats also do not have the ability to attribute hierarchical value to their obedience. Again, this is all fine. We're just trying to asses different views on the term. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Its the... oh Master, was going to come straight home, but the Boss needed me to do this and that. and you know how he gets if i say no, so of course i couldnt say no, i had to do what he said.... their belief is that no one can be disappointed in them, they can say no to no one. If this was my slave, then she's not being a doormat to me, then. How does this definition of a doormat deal with the conundrum of two immediately contradictory requests? (Example: doormat's old friend A saying "Come with me to the house party" vs. doormat's partner saying "Stay home with me tonight.")

tazzygirl -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 10:34:32 PM)
again, true julia. muddying those waters can lead to more problems than we need. abuse is abuse. it does exist. when does it exist? when the person it is happening too no longer consents to what is happening.

juliaoceania -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 10:34:38 PM)
quote: There is no right or wrong answer here. Actually when it comes to a legal terms like abuse and consent, there is a wrong answer, and people that ignore that end up in prison.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 10:35:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jujubeeMB ...I can't understand why anyone would want to be a doormat, because you're essentially having to sit there and hope a good person comes along to dominate you. No different from any dynamic, really... aren't those that are single and "looking", also hoping "a good person comes along to dominate" them? quote: If an abusive, cruel, fake Dom comes along, you won't be able to say no to him. I'd disagree... in my view, those seeking that type of dynamic are also seeking the RIGHT person for said dynamic... to be a doormat too.

juliaoceania -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 10:36:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl again, true julia. muddying those waters can lead to more problems than we need. abuse is abuse. it does exist. when does it exist? when the person it is happening too no longer consents to what is happening. Juries decide where the line is every day. To say that it is all open for interpretation... it really isn't. The only thing that is open for interpretation is the guilt or the innocence of the accused... but there are definitions of consent and abuse... legal definitions that actions are measured against

NihilusZero -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 10:38:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Spoken like someone who probably has never endured abuse... Argumentum ad hominem. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I have endured nonconsensual abuse... and I guess that is what makes it abuse, there wasn't consent. Correct. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Abuse is a straightforward concept... it is really the most straightforward concept that we have thus far covered... Doormats are abused people. They do not consent to this abuse, even though they put up with it... I know, I was a doormat too. I have made no secret of the fact my ex husband hit me... even when I was pregnant with his child, so yes, I know what a doormat is, I know what abuse is, and I know what consent it... Appeal to emotion. While I would certainly have sympathetic concerns for your previous plights, it does not change the fact that you consented to be in that situation. Now, this does bring up a very important point about the dangers inherent in being a doormat of having doormatish qualities...but, as I mentioned, such people do not just arbitrarily decide that they wish to be this way (usually). It is a the very difficult downside to being such a person...but that does not (and cannot) alter the way in which "abuse" is structured. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Now if people wanna identify themselves with that, it isn't any skin off my nose, I really do not care, but these words have meaning, and especially when it comes to the word abuse, one shouldn't muddy the waters. Saying abuse can happen without consent is precisely muddying the waters. It means I am abusing my slave every time my cat-o-nine-tails hits her flesh, whether she says she likes it or not. It specifically renders our entire community into a nether realm of limbo where nothing can be consensual at all.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125