RE: What If:

RE: What If: (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

Andalusite -> RE: What If: (3/17/2010 11:37:41 PM)
Back when I was looking, I got a lot of e-mails, but still few enough that they were reasonably manageable. I also contacted some men who had particularly intriguing profiles. If I were only getting one response per month here, I would have just left the site for a different one, or found someone through one of my vanilla hobbies. [:D] I think that submissive men who put a reasonable amount of effort into their profiles and interact intelligently on the forums tend to get a lot of interest, although the logistics may or may not be workable. If the numbers flipped the way you describe, I'd assume that most of the women would be scammers who would post one-liners or lengthy Nigerian scammer-esque e-mails, and that the men would pretty quickly leave the site in disgust and annoyance.

LadyAngelika -> RE: What If: (3/18/2010 5:20:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer A dominant does what he or she wants to do. I haven't seen that to be true. While there are some people, like me, who consider "dominance" to be a way to relate to the world in general, there are many people who consider "dominance" and "submission" to relate to what they want in their private relationships only. I know subs who are subs all the time, and subs who are only sub to their partner -- and I know doms who fit into similar categories. Just because a woman is a femdom in a particular relationship, it does not mean that in the world at large she does what she wants to, nor does it mean that she's good at choosing men to spend time with. Besides, people who are single and looking can suffer doubt and insecurity about their desirability to a partner, no matter how confident they might be at other times. I've been there, and I bet most femdoms have too, even if they got 5,000 emails a day from people they didn't want to date. In fact, often women who receive the most attention are the most lonely, because they know people are approaching them for superficial reasons, not from some deeper motivation. I honestly don't know how I feel about the whole "dominant as a personality" vs. "dominant in relationships." If people observed me, as a whole, in my daily interactions with work peers, service people, with people who are "my boss" and people I am "the boss of," no one would label me as "dominant." The reality is that to get by in the real world, to succeed in business and to "win friends and influence people" you can't "be dominant." That doesn't work. You have to be able to read people and treat them in a manner that encourages them to come on board with you. I know dominant women in the workforce; they create enemies. Dominance is not a way to succeed - the ability to identify people who want to lead and want to follow and then treating them accordingly is what works. I am by no means quiet, meek or unsure about things; however, I am not a bullshitter to my clients, and will tell a business peer, "I don't know, I will find out though," or admit when I have made a mistake or could do something better. This does not make me dominant, but it helps me earn confidence -- other people's confidence in my abilities. This is a far more "powerful currency" I can use in my daily life and in business than being "dominant." Being dominant just invites challenges, makes other people feel threatened and is an inconsistent way to keep people motivated and earn trust. I suppose we could get into all kinds of ways to define power, or dominance, but I had to just throw that out there. Akasha This is a fabulous post that probably deserves it's own thread. I tend to agree with Akasha that one cannot be dominant in real life as not everyone around them has agreed to submit to them. The individual who attempts this becomes domineering. That said, I find that the core of my personality is what makes me a dominant woman as well as a go getter in the business world. I just end up using different strategies. How to relate this all back to the OP is a good question. I guess I can say that I'm not so much preoccupied by the quantity of supply and demand but rather the quality of those I interact with, on this site like in every other aspect of my life. I'm pretty confident in who I am and what I'm capable of bringing to the table. This isn't my dominance talking, this is my self-assurance. Whether the tables were turned or not would not really change anything. Individuals who chose to be self-aware and cognizant of others tend to be happier in life, regardless of how many emails they send or receive. - LA

RedMagic1 -> RE: What If: (3/18/2010 6:55:40 AM)
Perhaps I define "dominance" differently from others. I consider "dominance" to be: assessing the forces in motion in a situation, setting a goal for what I want the situation to become, and then affecting those forces until my goal is achieved. It seems as though most people think "being dominant" means "bossing people around." It doesn't. It means getting the world to do what you want it to, even if someone else thinks they're in charge. At least, that's what it means for me. I don't want everyone to bow down to me. I just want to change the world. "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." -- Harry S Truman

PeonForHer -> RE: What If: (3/18/2010 8:15:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 I don't want everyone to bow down to me. I just want to change the world. I'm not sure I'd ever put the word 'just' immediately before the phrase 'change the world', Red ;-)

DesFIP -> RE: What If: (3/18/2010 1:38:47 PM)
Ignoring the flame wars, it doesn't matter who makes first contact. What matters is the relationship between two people. In the end, that's all it is. One person trying to establish a relationship with another.

LadyAngelika -> RE: What If: (3/18/2010 3:48:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 It seems as though most people think "being dominant" means "bossing people around." It doesn't. It means getting the world to do what you want it to, even if someone else thinks they're in charge. You just defined a good consultant ;-) Interesting! All jokes aside, I agree with you 100% that being dominant does not mean bossing people around. I meet a lot of "first time submissive men" who are quite surprised when I haven't gotten their next 20 moves premeditated and choreographed. Though they are not the same, I often compare some of the key qualities of a good leader with some of the key qualities of a good dominant. - LA

PeonForHer -> RE: What If: (3/18/2010 3:56:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: : RedMagic1 Though they are not the same, I often compare some of the key qualities of a good leader with some of the key qualities of a good dominant. That's interesting. I've never thought of a dominant that way. For me, wanting to dominate's the important thing; the skill at it can be worked on. * edited because I'm anal retentive.*

ElanSubdued -> RE: What If: (3/18/2010 6:52:05 PM)
joether, I've finally got around to responding directly to the OP. :-) Hmmm. Interesting notion... the whole supply and demand reversal thing. Had you posed this question a number of years back and I'd replied then, some of the premises of your hypothesis would have gone right by me and been accepted carte blanche. Ah, but then is then and now is now. There are some benefits to youth, but also plenty of benefits for those who've been on the planet to experience a fair bit of life. I'll take each tenet and discuss from my own perspective. quote: The messages sent and received, were reversed. Dommes, instead of getting enough mail to build a sky-scraper, now only get one mail a month. Male subs, were flooded with mailings. This likely wouldn't change anything for me. I've never gone for quantity when it comes to friendships and relationships, and instead prefer quality. I also prefer to approach people who interest me, though it's nice, from time-to-time, when someone approaches me. quote: At first, both parties would be happy, but after a few months, wouldn't the process simply become as it is now, but just opposite?" This assumes people aren't happy with things as they are now. I'm plenty happy with the people I talk to, write to, and associate with. Generally, when I write to someone, they do reply. That's because I choose people carefully and I write letters only when I think the reader and I actually have something to talk about. Occasionally someone doesn't reply. So be it. This doesn't bother me at all. People are busy. Life gets busy. The person may simply not wish to talk with me. That's okay too. quote: Would male subs come to respect Dommes more, given, they have to (and I hate to say this in the same sentence as a Domme/Lady) whore themselves out? No. I wouldn't respect Dommes any more than I do now because I respect them plenty now. Actually, it's individuals I respect because of their personage, not their role. Regarding Dommes whoring themselves out. You don't think Dommes do this already? Let me be a little less flippant and tongue in cheek. What I mean is I've had a number of women, dominant women, turn on their sexuality to attract my attention. I do the same if the person interests me in this way. Changing the supply and demand numbers wouldn't change a thing. Actually, let's address the supply and demand issue. I disagree with the underlying notion in your OP which I believe assumes a significant difference in supply of interested Dommes to interested submissives. I don't find this at all. There are plenty of quality, interested Dommes just as there are plenty of quality, interested submissives. I'm not talking about online web sites now. I'm talking about the real world. Go to a much. Go to a private BDSM house party. Go to a BDSM seminar. Go to a BDSM play party. At any of these venues I've found the numbers are very even. There are lots of dominants (both male and female) and plenty of submissives (again, both male and female). The challenge is in finding a compatible partner. That's not easy for anyone, vanilla or kinky. Once you get a better understanding of the type of person you're looking for and you develop some life experience and social skills, it becomes easier to meet people. If you're a bit shy about approaching people, that can make things more difficult, but to help circumvent feelings like this I remind myself "you miss one hundred percent of the opportunities you don't attempt". This isn't to say one should take every opportunity that comes their way, but with no effort it's not likely you'll meet with much success. quote: Would Dommes really feel respected, that their sub could drop them for someone else? This doesn't apply to me. No friend or partner of mine would laud over me that they could dump me for someone else and if they did, I'd welcome them out of my life. Similarly, I don't use others as a way to manipulate my friends and relationship partners. I've seen people use the "you're one of many vying for my attention" modus operandi. As soon as someone uses this kind of approach on me, I lose interest in them. I've never been a fan of "shoppers" when it comes to personal relationships. Of course, we all shop for partners in the sense we all look for partners, but I refuse to be part of someone's "try him out then throw him back on the shelf to see if there's something better" scheme and I don't treat my partners this way either. quote: Yes, short term the concept sounds amusing, even a vacation. If there is a difference in numbers, I don't think swinging it one way or the other would make much difference. It takes at least two people to make a relationship and each person makes a decision about whether they want to be part of that relationship. quote: But long term, would it really be good for the concept of Femdom? I don't think this has anything to do with Femdom. It's a human, relationship compatibility issue. We humans are selective about our partners, no doubt about it. And, this is men and women, dominant and submissive alike. Elan.

PeonForHer -> RE: What If: (3/18/2010 8:39:43 PM)
I've seen people use the "you're one of many vying for my attention" modus operandi. As soon as someone uses this kind of approach on me, I lose interest in them. Nnnyesss. My first real experience of D/s was one of those. Specifically, "You don't like the fact that I've got a husband, who wants to watch, and who I didn't mention before you and I met. Well, you'd better get used to it. Submales are two-a-penny." But the supply and demand economics argument didn't convince. After hearing that line, she stopped looking glamorous to me and started looking like a tawdry little hag. It wouldn't matter to me if there was only one femdom in the world and every male was a sub - I still wouldn't want to go with a tawdry little hag.

LadyAngelika -> RE: What If: (3/18/2010 9:48:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: : RedMagic1 Though they are not the same, I often compare some of the key qualities of a good leader with some of the key qualities of a good dominant. That's interesting. I've never thought of a dominant that way. For me, wanting to dominate's the important thing; the skill at it can be worked on. * edited because I'm anal retentive.* Notice my use of the word good, which of course, is completely subjective, I agree. - LA

LadyAngelika -> RE: What If: (3/18/2010 9:50:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: I've seen people use the "you're one of many vying for my attention" modus operandi. As soon as someone uses this kind of approach on me, I lose interest in them. Nnnyesss. My first real experience of D/s was one of those. Specifically, "You don't like the fact that I've got a husband, who wants to watch, and who I didn't mention before you and I met. Well, you'd better get used to it. Submales are two-a-penny." But the supply and demand economics argument didn't convince. After hearing that line, she stopped looking glamorous to me and started looking like a tawdry little hag. It wouldn't matter to me if there was only one femdom in the world and every male was a sub - I still wouldn't want to go with a tawdry little hag. In any case, Elan and Peon, you two boys are such gems that you don't need to put up with that kind of crap. A smart woman sees your true value quite quickly. - LA

PeonForHer -> RE: What If: (3/19/2010 5:45:10 AM)
Thank you, LA. You are a sweetie. :-)

slavekal -> RE: What If: (3/19/2010 10:08:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy Men make this whole thing go 'round. We pursue the subs as well as the Dommes. If Dommes were in control they would be the ones taking charge and pursuing their pathetic male subby counterparts. They don't. It's just one of the many illusions about the whole domme bullshit. Dommes scrape the bottom of the barrel. They tend not to be very attractive, mentally awol, cunts. If they somehow are found to be attractive then they are pros. Uneducated, attractive, damaged prostidommes relying on other's dollars to compensate for the lack of their own. You are painting with a very broad and nasty brush. I know or a fact that there are some attractive, quality dommes on these boards. Maybe it takes a bit of sifting to find the best ones, but they are there. As far as the original topic goes, if things were reversed, we guys would be inundated with fake emails that went nowhere. Some of us might appreciate the free wank material, but it would get old after a while.

undergroundsea -> RE: What If: (3/23/2010 10:22:37 PM)
I am interpreting this topic not for individual effect (how someone who is already attached would be affected) but for collective effect. How much of the pursuit by submissive men is driven by the ratios, how much by biological propensity, and how much by societal norms (that it is men who pursue)? I think the ratio is the smallest contributor of these three forces. Presently, women do not need to pursue in the same manner as men do. Even outside Fm, men have a greater need to catch attention via the introductory contact. More often, introductory contact by women serves to invite attention and pursuit. How much or not the man then pursues depends on how much immediate interest he feels. Thus, presently it's not so much that women have to pursue as much as to be noticed and invite pursuit. Times are changing but presently this trend applies more than not. Thus, if one puts more women than men in the room, I expect that statistically it is not that more women would pursue the way men do but that they would try harder than usual to invite attention and pursuit. I expect the same would occur if ratios change in Fm. I think we would see more first contacts by women (to invite attention), and statistically more attention to profile content than we see today. What can one say about the quality of first-contact emails that would be sent by women? While I have received emails on which I could offer constructive feedback, my stories do not compare to those I hear from women. If we accept that women are better at writing introductory notes than men, then is it because they have greater tendency for social sensibility, or is it because being at the receiving end of pursuit and introductory contact has helped them see effective approaches? Would the situation be different if from birth it was women who pursued and men who were at the receiving end of pursuit? A user on these forums once used the term demographic induced desperation. I think it is equally valid to say there exists demographic induced attraction. At a collective level, such a reversal would allow men to be more selective than they are today and women to be less so. The matter of attraction and selection is not one of black or white but of shades of gray, and such a reversal would lead to a shift in the shades of gray for each. The organic power in any given relationship or courtship relies on each personal traits and the ratio. Thus, the ratio does not singularly determine power but it does contribute towards it. At a collective level, it would move the balance in favor of men. Over time I have seen a few women who displayed an arrogance, or who seemed to rely more on the ratio than on personal attributes for their bravado. I think a reversal in ratios would counter this phenomenon. Would it shift it the other way? I am unsure. The bravado I describe is not female-specific but human-specific. However, today all three forces I describe above lean in favor of women. If the ratios reverse, only one of these forces would tend to create change. I think another effect would be the impact on financial scenarios that revolve around Fm. Because it is not just ratios but relatively greater biological propensity or willingness to pursue sexual arousal, I doubt we would see a full reversal here either. It would lessen (but not likely eliminate) such occurrences. If we could equalize all variables (biological propensity and willingness to spend for sexual arousal, expendible income, etc) that control the direction of flow of money in a way that would indeed reverse the direction, I think we would see similar behavior in men at receiving end of such forces. Here also the behavior at hand is not female-specific or male-specific but human specific. quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy But we are the Doms....We take what we want. We are at the top of the fucking food chain. We don't wait for or prey to come to us. This approach would fail with me. If a dominant tries too hard or crosses the line from confidence to arrogance, it leaves me unimpressed. quote: ORIGINAL: jefff What he hopes to achieve is what many of us hope to achieve. We wouldn't mind running into someone smart, someone with a native intelligence who can recognize satire. We might also hope to find someone who doesn't think all this stuff is sooooo serious. We might hope to find someone who can think for themselves. Your suggestion that those who object to domiguy's posts do not have native intelligence is incorrect. While domiguy can put claim to a fair amount of wit, I am more impressed when one is able to show wit or humor without directing offensive comments at others--each for sake of sophistication of wit and creativity, and for other personality traits. Also, I do not accept your assertion that his comments are for sake of satire. I sense his primary objective is to get a rise out of others. Cheers, Sea

MsHValentine -> RE: What If: (3/24/2010 5:35:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea quote: Thus, if one puts more women than men in the room, I expect that statistically it is not that more women would pursue the way men do but that they would try harder than usual to invite attention and pursuit. Unfortunately, most of the men in the room aren't going to appeal to most of the women in the room, like it does when the tables are turned. Women are much more discriminatory and choosey when it comes to mate selection. Contrary to what women think, women will never have to try hard very hard to get the attention of most men. Men are happy just receiving a look and smile from a woman. Even the most average looking women will turn mens' heads on any given day, it's built in their nature. [:(]

PeonForHer -> RE: What If: (3/24/2010 3:49:50 PM)
What?! You and I inhabit different worlds, Ms HV!

undergroundsea -> RE: What If: (3/25/2010 9:25:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsHValentine Unfortunately, most of the men in the room aren't going to appeal to most of the women in the room, like it does when the tables are turned. Women are much more discriminatory and choosey when it comes to mate selection. Contrary to what women think, women will never have to try hard very hard to get the attention of most men. Men are happy just receiving a look and smile from a woman. Even the most average looking women will turn mens' heads on any given day, it's built in their nature. [:(] It makes sense that women are more selective than men from an evolutionary psychology perspective. I think, however, that notion is exaggerated because men have a greater tendency to compartmentalize, and their degree and criteria for selectiveness vary based on depth and duration of interaction envisioned. It is one thing to attract a man briefly and it is another to attract him for marriage. I think it is for this reason that most healthy long-term relationships are between people of similar caliber. The context of this thread is not today's world but a scenario where women outnumber men. To illustrate what I mean, let us imagine an isolated island with 90 women and 10 men. In this situation, women would try harder than usual to attract attention not as much because men's general response has changed but because of competition from other women. And, even more so because this scenario suggests an ongoing imbalance like that described in the OP, the level of selectiveness of each men and women would be different than in a scenario where ratios are not so lopsided. Let's move that ratio to a room (I meant to imply a social function for singles) versus an isolated island. The same forces apply but with a lesser magnitude. I don't suggest that complete mismatches will occur, but that there will be a shift in the shades of grey. A portion of this shift might be rational but there is also an irrational component that occurs in the form of attraction felt. It is this effect on attraction felt to which I refer as demographic induced attraction. Cheers, Sea

cloudboy -> RE: What If: (3/25/2010 9:33:56 PM)
quote: This approach would fail with me. If a dominant tries too hard or crosses the line from confidence to arrogance, it leaves me unimpressed. Actually, I think you and Domiguy would make a pretty good couple. You can even check out his medical records online; he's really "packin" according to his GP.

cloudboy -> RE: What If: (3/25/2010 9:43:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Perhaps I define "dominance" differently from others. I consider "dominance" to be: assessing the forces in motion in a situation, setting a goal for what I want the situation to become, and then affecting those forces until my goal is achieved. It seems as though most people think "being dominant" means "bossing people around." It doesn't. It means getting the world to do what you want it to, even if someone else thinks they're in charge. At least, that's what it means for me. I don't want everyone to bow down to me. I just want to change the world. "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." -- Harry S Truman Sounds like you went to business school. "assessing the forces in motion," "setting the goal," "affecting those forces," "goal is achieved" I've gotta say that truly is management speak for bossing the minions around. I'd recommend, tho, you take a page out glen gary glen ross. Let it fly, don't hold back, let'em HAVE IT! "Put that coffee down. Coffee's for closers only."

cloudboy -> RE: What If: (3/25/2010 9:48:27 PM)
quote: Dommes scrape the bottom of the barrel. They tend not to be very attractive, mentally awol, cunts. QUIT pissing around and just call me by name, would you! I am 'man enough to take it!'

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875