|
PeonForHer -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/26/2010 10:28:53 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DMFParadox
. . . Basically, the woman must earned your fondness, or she won't value it. What she does to earn it varies by user; for me, if she's pliant and attentive, and has interesting ideas about things I've not discovered before. For you, it may be that she naturally takes charge of things. But whatever it is, your fondness must be deserved.
Actually, whether or not a woman acts in a dominant way towards me has almost nothing to do with my fondness for her. In fact, if she acts in a dominant way, I'll be searching to see what she is other than that.
I think we're talking past each other.
I was considering your overall view last night, all the while thinking, 'who does this man remind me of?' The huge irony is that you make me recall character in a British soap who was a rake, a philanderer and a serial hearbreaker but who, nonetheless, was key to my developing the attitude to this 'big dating game' that I have now.
At one point in the soap, our rake is asked by a callow youth, 'How come you're so successful with women, then?' So Rake teaches the lad some tricks. None of them work. In desperation, Callow Youth wails, 'What's your secret?' Rake's reply is, ' I don't have a secret. I just love women, that's all. ' Callow Youth thinks he loves women, but he doesn't - he worships and adores them, but he doesn't love them. He doesn't even like them, really - but he doesn't know this.
He could have learned the techniques and turned them into an art. I did that once, and to some small degree, but I soon gave it up. I played a woman into bed and couldn't get it up. The dick is much less able to play games than the mouth and eyes. It was only at that point that I fully realised just how cold it all felt. It was a pretty ugly feeling.
I think the key point is just that: that CY didn't know the difference. Perhaps none of us really does, because words like 'fondness', 'love' or 'adoration' aren't used in any rigorous way. They're not amenable to clear, objective disambiguation because the true evidence of what they are can only be seen inside oneself and learned only by experience. I didn't know the difference, either, at CY's age. I only learned the difference when I learned to see past my own projections - a certain form of the 'anima', as Jung calls it, the 'siren that lures men to their death' or, when such adoration flips over into bitterness and hatred, the 'Circe who turns men into pigs'.
When I talk of 'fondness' for women being the prerequisite for success with them I'm addressing myself, as I once was, and at least a few of the men I see using this forum, particularly. The adoration I see is a cold thing - it's adoration of an object. The woman will feel it as cold and I think the man will, too. It's the kind of feeling that renders a man incapable of connecting with a woman. Without the fondness that I mentioned earlier, there's no question of a man being able to play games - to pour charm onto a woman then suddenly turn off the tap, for instance - because he'd have no idea what constitutes charm and she wouldn't be receptive to it anyway. So . . .
quote:
On men who like women being the most successful - meh. It could be said that you're putting the cart before the horse; I agree that there's a clear correlation, but I'm no longer certain one causes the other.
. . . I call fondness for women the necessary condition, rather than the sufficient condition, for 'success with them' (yep, I hate that last phrase makes me wince, too).
But it goes quite a long way to being the sufficient condition, too. When you're fond of someone, getting to be intuitively connected to her, being sensitive to what she is, comes a lot easier. For instance (and here I'll brag a bit) I don't need evidence of the 'irrationality of women' - I assume that they're irrational, just as I am. But, for me, it's not useful to see this as 'irrationality', because that's to focus on the obstacles rather than path through them. It's more useful to be aware of the various motivations and desires that women have, and keep an eye out for where and when those desires may conflict. The same is true when it comes to women trying to deal with men.
I'm perfectly aware, for instance, that women will have a desire both for the 'stable and supportive' type of man and for the devilish 'player'. I knew that well before the slew of scientific evidence that showed that women will tend to be attracted much more to the rakish type during the high point of their menstrual cycles. All that kind of thing, though, is by the way. You can read a woman well enough for dating purposes, if you're fond of her, in the sense that I mean it. You don't take long to realise that dating, sex, romantic love . . . the whole thing - is a cauldron of mixed desires.
A corollary of the foregoing is that I think that if the techniques you've learned work for you, then I'd have a strong belief that it's because you're fond of women. Perhaps you're even one of those men (and I've met some of them) who always was fond of women and has no idea that other men are, or ever were, different. The rest of us have to find a way through all those prickly rosebushes (which both men and women make) before we can kiss the princess, and she can kiss us, so to speak.
|
|
|
|
