RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (Full Version)

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



Message


porcelaine -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 12:04:48 PM)

leadership527,

quote:

Yes, this is what fools think. I'm not one of them. I said quite specifically that I may assess absolutely nothing wrong with the submission... it may come with a great deal of strength and integrity, it may be driven by motives which are laudable by own values. In short, I may approve of it in every possible way.
.

I don't think you're in the same boat. I believe you know that much about me. However, the idea is bounced around without the sound reasoning you've provided. To the degree that many question that part of themselves. We're speaking straightforward here and even though you're not guilty of doing the same that doesn't mean others exhibit the same maturity.

quote:

*nods* In the end, it is things like commitment, integrity, strength, compassion, etc. that will determine the quality of that which is offered -- on both sides of the kneel.


I agree.

quote:

Heh, yes. I agree. Semi-dominant personalities are threatened such a thing. If you knew more about my background, you'd know that it's laughable to think I would be bothered by it.


I would never entertain your company if I believed you fell into that camp. Seriously. :)

quote:

Again, you are misreading me. I quite specifically said (and said again above), that it all may be quite laudable. But truly, aren't I allowed to prefer vanilla and you chocolate without a debate on which is "better"?


Of course you are. We're not debating better. All three are noteworthy in my mind. It depends what the dominant is seeking. Your comment was about those with submission orientations, something I identify with. That's why I posed the question.

quote:

That still doesn't change my preference though. Of course, as I noted, what undoubtedly WOULD change my preference is falling in love with a girl like you who is in the "by orientation" camp.


You know me and preferences. I'm all for them. If you asked I'd say the orientation is a layer. Give me a man that digs to the bones instead. Who is she beyond all that stuff?

quote:

Which STILL doesn't change the fact that in the here and now, the "by orientation" submissives don't generate "domly urges" in me. At this very moment in time, I do not resonate with them.


I get where you're coming from. There are dominant types that don't resonate with me as well. I think that's true for most.

~porcelaine




ReginaMirus -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 12:05:27 PM)

[image]http://gotsole.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/obamahellno.jpg[/image]




Jeffff -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 12:09:33 PM)

Liar...:)




ReginaMirus -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 12:10:37 PM)

Seriously. I'm good. Honest.




Jeffff -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 12:12:31 PM)

Ok..... if you say so...... It's a heartwarming story.....with a happy ending!




Lucienne -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 12:22:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Ok..... if you say so...... It's a heartwarming story.....with a happy ending!


I'll bite.




Jeffff -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 12:23:19 PM)

Ummmm.....no




leadership527 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 12:24:03 PM)

quote:

Raven said:
i just want to jump in here and say that this bit isn't accurate.  In my experience natural alpha men often are actually driven even more to Own and control a woman - it is that sense that they are "Masters of their own Universe."

But that's just the thing Raven. If someone is truly seriously dominant, then they are ALWAYS masters of their own universe. Nothing can change that. For exactly that reason, they become a lot more flexible about the outward control they need to exhibit. When you are no longer grasping at the reins of power because you know for a fact you HAVE them, you tend to get a lot more relaxed. I draw this observation from my pesonal interactions with people who are seriously and demonstrably alpha (let's arbitrarily say "people who have been in a leadership position over 1k or more people at a time -- a measure I myself do not meet). There are, as always exceptions to this. Larry Ellison, for instance, has that whole bad-boy, rockstar thing going on. But that is the exception, not the rule.

I personally suspect sampling error on your part. If the sample set you are looking at is "masters", then of course you'll see it this way. The vast majority of seriously alpha people, however, are not even remotely engaged in BDSM.

I also have to disagree with your assertion that the gorean board show a populace skewed towards the truly alpha males. There's way to much bluster and bravado over there for me to read it that way. Some are, I grant. But about the same ratio as I see both here and in the vanilla populace.




LadyHibiscus -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 12:30:38 PM)

Anteaterman, call me right NOW and I will listen to you masturbate!




Jeffff -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 12:31:42 PM)

MY pay pal account is down. What if you didn' send a check?




LadyHibiscus -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 12:34:10 PM)

Cheatypants!! You offered it for free on the last page!




Jeffff -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 12:37:39 PM)

I am a tease....... but it's not my fault. I watched too much porn.... I have....fetishes!




LadyHibiscus -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 12:44:00 PM)

Jeffwey haz ze fetish!!!

OP, I have a suggestion. The Gorean Boards. Go there. Talk to those folks. They are just chock full ofd theories and stuff.




Jeffff -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 12:48:18 PM)

Here is a little breath play.......... Anteater style




[image]local://upfiles/455552/63CC3F654292446DBD31BD8D3E87F8AB.jpg[/image]




LadyHibiscus -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 12:52:51 PM)

Ooh you made my bewbage all perky!




cloudboy -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 1:14:37 PM)


I know, I'm just kidding around. Now I'm waiting for Jeff to make his disclosures.




peppermint -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 1:22:19 PM)

Well, since I disagree with your first paragraph completely, there was no reason to go on and read any more.

Let me say this.  It does not matter one little bit why someone is dominant or submissive.  The only thing that matters is that you accept what you are and embrace that part of you.  Anything else including wild unsubstantiated theories is just hogwash and quite frankly, not important. 




SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 2:04:41 PM)

quote:

But that's just the thing Raven. If someone is truly seriously dominant, then they are ALWAYS masters of their own universe. Nothing can change that. For exactly that reason, they become a lot more flexible about the outward control they need to exhibit. When you are no longer grasping at the reins of power because you know for a fact you HAVE them, you tend to get a lot more relaxed. I draw this observation from my pesonal interactions with people who are seriously and demonstrably alpha (let's arbitrarily say "people who have been in a leadership position over 1k or more people at a time -- a measure I myself do not meet). There are, as always exceptions to this. Larry Ellison, for instance, has that whole bad-boy, rockstar thing going on. But that is the exception, not the rule.

I personally suspect sampling error on your part. If the sample set you are looking at is "masters", then of course you'll see it this way. The vast majority of seriously alpha people, however, are not even remotely engaged in BDSM.

I also have to disagree with your assertion that the gorean board show a populace skewed towards the truly alpha males. There's way to much bluster and bravado over there for me to read it that way. Some are, I grant. But about the same ratio as I see both here and in the vanilla populace.


Finally someone understands me. This is exactly what I wanted to say when I said that "natural alpha men" don't need to dominate. They are so assured of their power and dominance that they don't need to use BDSM or some other types of formal domination in order to prove their dominance. That's why they are most likely in vanilla relationships, not D/s. Most natural leaders fall into this category.

They are so assured of their dominance that they wouldn't bother even to submit to a woman for a while. Quite often such alpha men treated their ladies with utter love and respect.




Jeffff -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 2:08:50 PM)

O.o.


~smiles~




laurell3 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 2:09:23 PM)


*smacks her head against the keyboard*

yeah because wiitwd doesn't involve love and respect....just keep digging....




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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125