RE: Would this be annoying to you?

RE: Would this be annoying to you? (Full Version)

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

Message

ElanSubdued -> RE: Would this be annoying to you? (6/6/2010 10:29:52 AM)
MoGa, I read your post. But seriously now, tell us what you really think. I mean, don't hold back. :-) (Switching to serious mode now myself.) You wrote: "...his is one of those MKINYK, because I happen to like baby talk. It's amazing how many put this kink down without a thought that there may be some of us who enjoy it." My post wasn't meant to condemn anyone's kink. In the right context, I enjoy baby talk too, but, in my experience, the amount and timing are crucial to mutual enjoyment. E.

MistressOfGa -> RE: Would this be annoying to you? (6/6/2010 10:35:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly A narcissist is excessively preoccupied with thoughts of power, prestige, personal adequacy, denial of personal faults. The narcissistic personality disorder is associated with gross self-centeredness. I have to say that is much more likely to be a description applied to dominants than submissives, Holly. Peon, That is a big narcissistic umbrella you have put Dominants under. I would have agreed with you had you said some Dominants can be described as such, but for you to make such a sweeping statement is just wrong. Or perhaps you have met every Dominant in the world, that you can post something this rediculous? MoGa

ElanSubdued -> RE: Would this be annoying to you? (6/6/2010 10:37:16 AM)
MoGa, Peon's not himself this morning. He's got balls, but the wrong kind. Cut him a little sac... oops... I mean, slack. :-) Edited to add: I agree with you that it's not correct to paint dominants (or people in general) with a single brush. Peon is correct to the extent that some dominants, like all people, have personality attributes that aren't desirable... at least, not if you happen to be their partner. S-types are, for that matter, no less exempt. E.

MistressOfGa -> RE: Would this be annoying to you? (6/6/2010 10:40:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ElanSubdued MoGa, I read your post. But seriously now, tell us what you really think. I mean, don't hold back. :-) (Switching to serious mode now myself.) You wrote: "...his is one of those MKINYK, because I happen to like baby talk. It's amazing how many put this kink down without a thought that there may be some of us who enjoy it." My post wasn't mean to condemn anyone's kink. In the right context, I enjoy baby talk too, but, in my experience, the amount and timing are crucial to mutual enjoyment. E. Hi Elan, I wasn't specifically referring to any one person. But if you want to go back and read all the nasty comments and the "Ewww's" that this kink brought out of some of the most open minded people I have met, I will rest my case. I was going to put a wink there to "make it ok", but changed my mind. MoGa

sirsholly -> RE: Would this be annoying to you? (6/6/2010 10:41:26 AM)
i think there are times that narcissism is confused with an overblown ego.

PeonForHer -> RE: Would this be annoying to you? (6/6/2010 10:47:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressOfGa quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly A narcissist is excessively preoccupied with thoughts of power, prestige, personal adequacy, denial of personal faults. The narcissistic personality disorder is associated with gross self-centeredness. I have to say that is much more likely to be a description applied to dominants than submissives, Holly. Peon, That is a big narcissistic umbrella you have put Dominants under. I would have agreed with you had you said some Dominants can be described as such, but for you to make such a sweeping statement is just wrong. Or perhaps you have met every Dominant in the world, that you can post something this rediculous? MoGa MoGa, Now, don't go going to turn my conjectures about tendencies into absolute statements, the better to knock them down. I am talking of tendencies. This is something I've seen in a certain proportion of dominants on this board. I did not talk about 'all dominants'. However, when it comes to unearthing all sorts of faults on one side or another, I think we've seen a very marked tendency indeed with regard to this story of lurch and his mistress. It's been in favour of the dominant, of course.

MistressOfGa -> RE: Would this be annoying to you? (6/6/2010 10:48:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ElanSubdued MoGa, Peon's not himself this morning. He's got balls, but the wrong kind. Cut him a little sac... oops... I mean, slack. :-) E. Elan, Never tell a sadist to cut a man a little sac lol Mmmmm! And for the record, I love a guy that has balls and stands up for something or says what is on his mind. [:D]

LadyNTrainer -> RE: Would this be annoying to you? (6/6/2010 10:52:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blackpearl81 Do you charge for those? [:)] A pre-diagnosis, which is a fancy word for a halfway educated opinion that actually means nothing? Naah. Opinions are like assholes; everybody's got one, and sometimes they stink.

ElanSubdued -> RE: Would this be annoying to you? (6/6/2010 10:52:54 AM)
MoGa, Thanks for your reply. For some reason, play with the word "baby" in it tends to get a huge, polarized reaction, even from folk whom you would not expect this. To a degree, I understand why, but really, when examining this, baby talk, baby play, diaper play, etc. are quite soft-edged roleplay when compared to some of the other things kinksters do. I'll admit, until a short while ago, most play with the word "baby" or "diaper" in it squiked me. While it's still true that much of this kind of play isn't my preference, I've been examining my general reactions and decided they are irrational. Play not to my preferecne is simply that, play not to my preference. I wish the BDSM community, as a whole, would be more tolerant of certain kinks, but I don't think this is going to change any time soon. Elan.

laurell3 -> RE: Would this be annoying to you? (6/6/2010 10:56:33 AM)
I think the other problem with making a "pre-diagnosis" that is you assume that what people are like online is what they are really like or that they truly have the feelings that their words seem to be suggesting. Sunshine has a good thread going right now that has kind of demonstrated to me that I don't perceive alot of people the way they perceive themselves and that demonstrated feeling may not actually exist.

LadyNTrainer -> RE: Would this be annoying to you? (6/6/2010 10:57:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ElanSubdued You wrote: "...his is one of those MKINYK, because I happen to like baby talk. It's amazing how many put this kink down without a thought that there may be some of us who enjoy it." My post wasn't mean to condemn anyone's kink. In the right context, I enjoy baby talk too, but, in my experience, the amount and timing are crucial to mutual enjoyment. What was missed in the OP's case, IMHO, was the even more crucial factor of consensuality. In our community, it's considered perfectly cool to be a heavy sadist who is into rough body play. However, if you pull this stuff out of your ass on a random partner, totally by surprise and without prior negotiation or consent, that's not so cool. I could say the same for AB diaper messing play, age play in general, golden showers, switching, needles, fisting etc. When two fully consenting people negotiate for these scenes, it is fun for all. If one person pulls it on another by surprise, without checking in with their partner first to see if they are into this thing and consent to doing it with them, it's gonna be a trainwreck at best and jail time at worst. Surprise buttsex, anyone? [:D]

ElanSubdued -> RE: Would this be annoying to you? (6/6/2010 11:00:35 AM)
MoGa, --- Never tell a sadist to cut a man a little sac lol Mmmmm! I'll let you in on the joke. This morning, in another thread, a certain submissive (whom, for some reason, doesn't come to mind at the moment :-) was afraid to click a link of a dude whose balls had been literally ripped open. I supplied the picture inline, in a post, because I'm helpful, and altruistic, and such. The submissive was not happy at all. Now I have to make a peace offering, which I should do post haste. E.

PeonForHer -> RE: Would this be annoying to you? (6/6/2010 11:02:25 AM)
I think 'baby-talk' is more acceptable if it's kept somewhat private. Every year I read the Valentines Day messages in the Times - 'my fluffy honey bunny poodlesquonks', etc, etc - and my stomach lurches. Why such baby-talk is more offensive to my gut to read about than, say, pegging of one's dick, I don't know. Sign of the times, I suppose.

MistressOfGa -> RE: Would this be annoying to you? (6/6/2010 11:03:02 AM)
quote: I am talking of tendencies. This is something I've seen in a certain proportion of dominants on this board. I did not talk about 'all dominants'. Hmm..I must have missed this part in your original statement, this makes much more sense to me. Thank you for clearing it up [:)]

LadyNTrainer -> RE: Would this be annoying to you? (6/6/2010 11:04:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 I think the other problem with making a "pre-diagnosis" that is you assume that what people are like online is what they are really like or that they truly have the feelings that their words seem to be suggesting. Sunshine has a good thread going right now that has kind of demonstrated to me that I don't perceive alot of people the way they perceive themselves and that demonstrated feeling may not actually exist. I agree that it's a mistake to point to any individual and make absolute assumptions. I will say that there are general behavior patterns which may (or may not) be symptomatic of more serious underlying conditions. Whether any given individual exhibits enough of those patterns to make it a likely avenue for exploring towards a diagnosis is up to their clinician for final determination, not to random joes on the Internet. I probably shouldn't have used a $2 word to refer to an opinion that is not backed by hard fact. Mea culpa for lack of clarity in communication.

laurell3 -> RE: Would this be annoying to you? (6/6/2010 11:07:27 AM)
Sure, I got you meant that LnT. The point I was trying to make, probably not so eloquently as I've had little sleep (stupid cat), is that online people can appear to exhibit behaviors or feelings that may or may not exist. Our personal opinions/assumptions about them based on those exhibitions can be just as faulty. Did it make any sense this time?

PeonForHer -> RE: Would this be annoying to you? (6/6/2010 11:07:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressOfGa quote: I am talking of tendencies. This is something I've seen in a certain proportion of dominants on this board. I did not talk about 'all dominants'. Hmm..I must have missed this part in your original statement, this makes much more sense to me. Thank you for clearing it up [:)] No worries. [:)] And for the record: I even quite like a certain degree of narcissism in a dominant. Though maybe that's a subject for a different thread.

ElanSubdued -> RE: Would this be annoying to you? (6/6/2010 11:08:07 AM)
LadyNTrainer, quote: What was missed in the OP's case, IMHO, was the even more crucial factor of consensuality. In our community, it's considered perfectly cool to be a heavy sadist who is into rough body play. However, if you pull this stuff out of your ass on a random partner, totally by surprise and without prior negotiation or consent, that's not so cool. I could say the same for AB diaper messing play, age play in general, golden showers, switching, needles, fisting etc. When two fully consenting people negotiate for these scenes, it is fun for all. If one person pulls it on another by surprise, without checking in with their partner first to see if they are into this thing and consent to doing it with them, it's gonna be a trainwreck at best and jail time at worst. Just wanted to acknowledge and agree. Thanks for posting these thoughts. quote: Surprise buttsex, anyone? [:D] In general, no, but it somewhat depends on who is doing the "surprising". With the right surprisor, surprisee, and timing, this can be way, way hot. :-) E.

Ladynslave -> RE: Would this be annoying to you? (6/6/2010 11:13:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lurch999 sometimes it does get on Her nerves. Ma'am says that baby talk, while perfectly acceptable for babies or pets, may not be the most respectful way to speak to one's Domme, or Her body parts. i also wonder if it could be considered objectifying, especially because i am supposed to be the object. What grabs me is that this is a recurring theme throughout all your posts... She doesn't like it but I keep doing it. While I can admit that it's probably easier for those of us that sit on the outside and watch the little tidbits you throw out about your life unfold see this recurring theme, I have to ask... How much longer do you think it will take your Domme to see it? And you might really want to sit down and think about the answer to that. Eventually she will catch on that you aren't planning to stop this behavior (because it's pretty obvious you enjoy it as long as she lets you get away with it) and either take severe steps to correct it that I can assure you won't be in the least pleasant or she will drop you like a hot potato. My answer to your actual question is irrelevant as I am not the Domme in your life. What matters is that you recognise that it annoys your Domme and STOP IT! Which is not to say you can't still run these thoughts through your head as you perform the foot worship, just don't let it pass your lips. Lady

PeonForHer -> RE: Would this be annoying to you? (6/6/2010 11:15:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ElanSubdued In general, no, but it somewhat depends on who is doing the "surprising". With the right surprisor, surprisee, and timing, this can be way, way hot. :-) . . . Especially if that 'surprise' is performed by someone with a red-hot poker. Perhaps you could go off and find picture of the anus of someone to whom that had happened, Elan - for the general educational and cultural enhancement of this forum's readership?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125