RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme?

RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (Full Version)

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

Message

DMFParadox -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 1:08:43 PM)
>> Anyway, the above exchange is a great, albeit very highbrow example of why we shouldn't argue with women - even the few extremely intelligent ones. Yeah, but I still do it. And you know why? Because I still have some faith that their perspective mostly is cultural, not genetic. I mean, it's dictated by factors caused by genetics and positional expediency, but it's still based on what programmers would call an 'abstraction layer' that can, with effort, be rewritten. Using less words, sometimes you can smack some sense in a ho. So I do shit like this.

Lockit -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 1:14:08 PM)
Gotta love power plays, especially coming from people that assume they have the right and actually think they are getting somewhere they aren't. lol

PeonForHer -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 1:17:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DMFParadox quote: How do you get on the "cool guys" list? Simple - treat us like real people. What the fuck does this even mean? Treat you like real people. You'd have no trouble at-all understanding what she means if you'd spent any time looking at her profile. I confirmed that view earlier today, here: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3453344 If I'd had a plethora of messages like that, I'd have used the same words - I'd say 'I'm not being treated like a real person'. I'd have felt like shop-assistants commonly feel - that I was a 'non-person' in the eyes of the customers. That is, really, precisely what LNT's profile looks like.

DMFParadox -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 1:23:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: DMFParadox quote: How do you get on the "cool guys" list? Simple - treat us like real people. What the fuck does this even mean? Treat you like real people. You'd have no trouble at-all understanding what she means if you'd spent any time looking at her profile. I confirmed that view earlier today, here: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3453344 If I'd had a plethora of messages like that, I'd have used the same words - I'd say 'I'm not being treated like a real person'. I'd have felt like shop-assistants commonly feel - that I was a 'non-person' in the eyes of the customers. That is, really, precisely what LNT's profile looks like. Good point. Ish. At least a good foil. Allows me to point out I already addressed this; online dating tends to suck hard for all parties. Women get deluged, men get ignored, and it's a negative reinforcement cycle, if you'll pardon my psychobabble. But it's just not wise as a man to spend time writing a 'good' letter to women online. Backed up by statistics over at the OKCupid blog oktrends. The time investment versus results are obscene. People justify this by saying 'have patience, if it takes two years it takes two years.' FUCK. THAT. Also, guys who win the lottery tend to go, "If I can do it, you can too!" Fuck that too. The lottery is a tax on people who can't do math, and I find the behavior both sad and fucking hysterical.

Twoshoes -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 1:27:22 PM)
This is a good example of: "We can't relate to women, so we'll just categorize and generalize until it makes sense, somehow, anyhow, just fucking anyhow!"

Jaybeee -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 1:28:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DMFParadox >> Anyway, the above exchange is a great, albeit very highbrow example of why we shouldn't argue with women - even the few extremely intelligent ones. Yeah, but I still do it. And you know why? Because I still have some faith that their perspective mostly is cultural, not genetic. I mean, it's dictated by factors caused by genetics and positional expediency, but it's still based on what programmers would call an 'abstraction layer' that can, with effort, be rewritten. Using less words, sometimes you can smack some sense in a ho. So I do shit like this. Which is fun - and if you're doing it for the occasional zing of entertainment (yes, I myself occasionally indulge in a delightfully pointless argument with the delightfully illogical), if you're doing it to reassure yourself that even the most intelligent of them are largely creatures of emotion first, and logic a distant second, then yes, I can countenance it. But if you really are doing it because, deep down, you are quietly harbouring, in a place in your psyche that you don't talk about at parties, the merest shred of hope that you'll alter minds or hearts, don't. You're not JUST battling higher society's hushed acceptance of women's general divergences and aversions from what the rest of society loudly claims is "equality", you're also battling the biochemical divide. And once you've failed, as have thousands of well-intentioned men before you, to defeat it, you'll then discover a very unsettling truth about women's ACTUAL place in the world, and if I may paraphrase a fictional military man, you have to consider whether you can handle the truth. I suspect your sparring partner is herself well aware of this truth, but is just as much a victim of it as her less well-informed sisters; just a very willing one. Btw, speaking as a former Programmer myself, I'm well aware of what an abstraction layer is.

DMFParadox -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 1:29:49 PM)
Also, My main beef with 'treat you like real people' is that in a conversation where accuracy was becoming important - which I was enjoying immensely - she went all loosy fucking goosy on me. I feel betrayed, really. I cried sapphire tears, and staged impromptu soliloquies drawing from Frost and Tennyson, to the tunes of Eminem over Wagner. It was a real moment. Real people treat each other this way all the time. Real people make friends with each other this way all the time in person. I've been witness to sooo many retarded introductions that were ok, because frankly there's just not that much you can say when you're introducing yourself. Most of the message gets lost anyway. So frankly, fuck women who get down on men for trying, I so wish they spent a year or two on the other side of that equation.

PeonForHer -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 1:39:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DMFParadox Good point. Ish. At least a good foil. Foil? Did you check the link? What 95% (actually slightly more) of the men do who write to her here is the equivalent of those who toot their car-horns at a woman as they drive by. Perhaps accompanied by a 'nice tits, darlin'!'

DMFParadox -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 1:45:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: DMFParadox Good point. Ish. At least a good foil. Foil? Did you check the link? What 95% (actually slightly more) of the men do who write to her here is the equivalent of those who toot their car-horns at a woman as they drive by. Perhaps accompanied by a 'nice tits, darlin'!' Yeah, I did read the link. Did you? Did you see their conclusions on why men write letters like that? It was an argument based on the extremely low numbers of available, responsive women on pay sites, but it can be extrapolated to any situation where responsive women reach a critical low threshold. The evidence of such a situation can be seen here simply by the preponderance of women complaining, though it'd be false to draw that conclusion without a proven general principal to go by. Fortunately, that's what the OkTrends site provides, to a degree satisfactory enough for the basis of consideration. Not that you picked up on any of that, you epic tard. Just, you know, for the benefit of people who understand how making correlations should work, for those people, it's a useful link and statistic.

DMFParadox -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 1:47:21 PM)
God, I've got conversational blue balls here. I'm going to take a cold shower. Edited to add, I live in a world where I can manipulate women very easily. Lying in order to tell them the truth. Acting disinterested out of interest. Being straight-up possessive on women who say they hate this, and watching them melt, over and over. But at the same time, seeing them lie continuously about their own motivations. Not all of them, but too many. Seeing them do harm to themselves. Seeing them do harm to men with their self-delusions. Plenty of men do harm to women; but frankly, that topic is covered. There's an imbalance here, though. Nobody's talking about women's shenanigans in a convincing fashion. Most men are just lost because of it. Stumbling around blind. Acting out out of anger, or turtling up out of despair. Or worst of all, getting fucked by the situation over and over again, and saying, "It's ok, things aren't like that." It's abusive. It's infuriating. Any feminist worth her salt should be up in arms against her sisters over it. Not saying that women should be something other than what they are; but acknowledging that women do what they do, instead of covering it over and blaming it all on stupid men. This is my experience. I have plenty to back it up with scientific dialog, but... ya'll kind of just fail, so I'm speaking on your level now. That's my final word in this thread.

Lockit -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 1:54:48 PM)
Talking blue balls in the mistress section of the message board isn't going to gather any sympathy for you. Buck up and take it like a man. [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

LadyNTrainer -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 1:56:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DMFParadox Not missing any contexts here. You're missing mine. Also, you're losing whatever respect you might have earned so far. From you? Do you believe that earning the respect of a stranger should be a significant motive? quote: Now who's making sweeping generalizations based on sketchy anecdotes? I think we're largely talking at cross purposes here, and apparently in different languages. To explain the context of the statements you quoted, I clarified that in one case I was talking about people who send unsolicited sexual proposals to strangers, and in the other case I was talking about my friends and play partners who did not engage in this behavior. This is a specific clarification, not a generalization. quote: What the fuck does this even mean? Treat you like real people. Hey, I'm treating you like real people right now, and I've got your complete fucking attention. But I am sure as hell not respecting all your limits, now am I? You are respecting my limits, unless you have recently assumed a different identity to send me emails asking me to fuck you up the ass. And if that was your dick in that picture, you should shave it. A hairy shaft is not sexy. [:D] quote: From here, I know exactly how to a)make you comfortable by agreeing with certain assertions, disagreeing with others in a humorous but friendly way; or b)raise the bar by shit-testing you; or c)fuck off and leave you hanging. With words like 'Coward, get back here!' trailing behind me. Interesting. My serious question is whether you are actually interested in the topic, or whether emotional responses in the individual you are discussing the topic with is your primary interest. quote: I'm a motherfucking rollercoaster ride. Because it works. Works in what sense? What do you gain from prioritizing the emotional responses of other people presenting information over the information itself? Again, serious question. quote: There's more to your post that's almost worth responding to, in contrast to the points I did respond to, but the long and the short of it is that you're not really reading me and not worthy of deeper conversation. Then don't converse. Internet conversations are only worth participating in when you actually get something out of them.

PeonForHer -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 2:03:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DMFParadox Not that you picked up on any of that, you epic tard. Just, you know, for the benefit of people who understand how making correlations should work, for those people, it's a useful link and statistic. Oh dear, DMFP, what can I say? I'm an epic tard, women are all epic tards and, apparently, the universe is an epic tard, too. The universe must be an epic tard, because it keeps refusing to accept your objective scientific studies of it. For instance, I've only had one cmail ignored in the two years that I've been sending them. And there I am, labouring under my delusions that you only have to be friendly. Properly friendly, I mean. And I've used none of the methods you've cited, at length and in detail, on this thread. I've never written an opening cmail with more than a few lines, either. I can almost hear you saying, "Aha, your method works in practice, but does it work in theory?!' PS: Please let me know if you're having trouble reading this post - if so, I'll insert some "fucks" and "fuckings" to help you along in my next.

LadyNTrainer -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 2:06:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jaybeee Anyway, the above exchange is a great, albeit very highbrow example of why we shouldn't argue with women - even the few extremely intelligent ones. Failing to address the points of fact in an argument while dismissing the arguer on personal grounds - age, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, personal habits, etc - is a common logical fallacy. It is perhaps telling that it is also an emotionally satisfying one. If I were to disclose that I was transgender - either MtF or FtM, take your pick - or a cross dressing bio male - would your reading of the points of fact differ?

RedMagic1 -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 2:08:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer For instance, I've only had one cmail ignored in the two years that I've been sending them. And there I am, labouring under my delusions that you only have to be friendly. Properly friendly, I mean. My percentage isn't anywhere near that high, but yeah. Also, a femdom on another thread recently posted that she immediately deleted every email that didn't have a pic attached. I know this is not true, because I once sent her an email with no pic, and she responded. Of course, the first line in her response was, "LOL!" Being friendly wins.

LadyNTrainer -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 2:11:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Oh dear, DMFP, what can I say? I'm an epic tard, women are all epic tards and, apparently, the universe is an epic tard, too. The universe must be an epic tard, because it keeps refusing to accept your objective scientific studies of it. On point observation, but DM's actually being clever here. I think he's playing the moderators to close the thread.

Jaybeee -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 2:34:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer quote: ORIGINAL: Jaybeee Anyway, the above exchange is a great, albeit very highbrow example of why we shouldn't argue with women - even the few extremely intelligent ones. Failing to address the points of fact in an argument while dismissing the arguer on personal grounds - age, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, personal habits, etc - is a common logical fallacy. It is perhaps telling that it is also an emotionally satisfying one. Got a bit of time on my hands tonight, so I'll play - a BIT. What is your underlying point, dear lady? quote: If I were to disclose that I was transgender - either MtF or FtM, take your pick - or a cross dressing bio male - would your reading of the points of fact differ? Nope. A very few men possess enough Oestrogen to (want to) commit to a sex change.

LadyNTrainer -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 2:42:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jaybeee Got a bit of time on my hands tonight, so I'll play - a BIT. What is your underlying point, dear lady? Am I? Right now we're imagining that I might not be the gender you think I am, and considering how that might change your decision whether or not to engage, and how to engage. The underlying point is simply to question whether the notion of arguing with a woman or a man is actually different primarily because of their gender, or because of your assumptions about how their gender behaves, and how that changes the way in which you engage with them. Both are very likely to be significant factors in communication. quote: Nope. A very few men possess enough Oestrogen to (want to) commit to a sex change. It's not as simple as that. The transgendered brain is a remarkably complex thing, and the latest think from the think-tanks is that it's determined by hormonal cascades at specific times during fetal development, which can actually be separate from the hormonal cascades that determine physical characteristics. An interruption at the right (or wrong) crucial time can quite literally produce an individual with the brain of one gender and the body of another. Interesting stuff, though probably even more tangential to this thread.

stef -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 3:01:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jaybeee Nope. A very few men possess enough Oestrogen to (want to) commit to a sex change. The amount of estrogen in a person's system has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they desire SRS. ~stef

Jaybeee -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 3:23:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer quote: ORIGINAL: Jaybeee Got a bit of time on my hands tonight, so I'll play - a BIT. What is your underlying point, dear lady? Am I? Right now we're imagining that I might not be the gender you think I am, and considering how that might change your decision whether or not to engage, and how to engage. Your gender is of no actual consequence to whether I "engage" - we've already started this exchange, and I write this post now in full knowledge that you may not be a woman. It's also unimportant to my decision of how long to maintain it, and to the matter of how long it'll be until I make that decision. Those matters will be decided by my evaluation of what, if anything, I can learn from you of value. Pretty much my criterion for any discussion with anybody, online and off, and as you might imagine, I do occasionally run into women I think I may be able to extract useful information from. But very few. [:D] I've presumed you're female based on your member name and avatar. Just what gender are you, in fact? quote: The underlying point is simply to question whether the notion of arguing with a woman or a man is actually different primarily because of their gender, or because of your assumptions about how their gender behaves, and how that changes the way in which you engage with them. Both are very likely to be significant factors in communication. Ahhh ok. And just what incentive is on offer for explaining my rationale to you? quote: Nope. A very few men possess enough Oestrogen to (want to) commit to a sex change. quote: It's not as simple as that. The transgendered brain is a remarkably complex thing, and the latest think from the think-tanks is that it's determined by hormonal cascades at specific times during fetal development, which can actually be separate from the hormonal cascades that determine physical characteristics. An interruption at the right (or wrong) crucial time can quite literally produce an individual with the brain of one gender and the body of another. Interesting stuff, though probably even more tangential to this thread. The human brain, any, is an extremely complex organ. But you indeed make an interestingly novel point about brain gender, which in turn resolves my question above. I would add to that my speculation that hormone fluctuations, similar to the above, are the reason that 5% of any society is homosexual, however homo-friendly or homophobic.

Page: << < prev 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.734375E-02