ChatteParfaitt
Posts: 6562
Joined: 3/22/2011 From: The t'aint of the Midwest -- Indiana Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather OK, you have a Dom, and you have two fucking subs. the dom approaches them both, first sub gets all giddy and needs fresh fucking panties, the second one thinks she wants a restraining order. so is the guy a dom or a fucking creeper. he hasn't changed, he's the exact same fuck, but one sub sees dominance, and the other doesn't. so he doesn't have it, it's not in him, it's in the fucking sub's head. that's where "his" dominance is. which is my point, so much of what doms preach is simply based on the wrong fucking interpretation of what is actually going on. the vast majority of d/s happens exclusively in the sub's head and has little or fuck all to do with the dom. take the non-maso who endures pain as an example. ok, he gets off on it, he's a right fucking yummy sadist, but if she doesn't get off on it at some level, he's stuck surfing bdsmlibrary.com with a box of fucking kleenex by his side. say you're a dominant person, (male or female, makes no fucking diff). you have the urge to be dominant in your everyday life. if, and this is a big fucking if, you're lucky, you might have a job or the wealth that allows you to indulge that urge. but if not, well to fucking bad, sucks to be you, right? now take a person with a submissive nature. he or she can submit at will, there's fuck all that can stop them. people will not submit willy nilly to a dominant personality, but they will walk all the fuck over a submissive one if they aren't prevented from doing so. that's why each of us subs/switches has a long list of d-types we think are assholes, and only a short list of subs we think the same about, and those subs we generally don't fucking consider really subs. the asshole d-types are just that because they try to dominate when they have no fucking dominance. i'm heather's dream domme, and other people's crazy abusive psycho bitch. i fucking ooze dominance to her, and utterly lack it to them. wtff? what gives? e2a quote:
It's pretty much the old "I'm a sub but not your sub" idea. yeah, but it goes a little deeper, think of the inverse: "you're a dom but your not my dom". well, what that really fucking means is "you THINK your a dom, but your not really". how many times have you heard the fucking phrase "self-proclaimed dom"? and how many times have you heard the phrase "self-proclaimed sub"? bet the first fucking outnumbers the second by several magnitudes. Poppycock !! Utter and total poppycock !! Dominance is not all in someone's head. I see dominance and submission as personality traits placed on opposite ends of a spectrum. You have the most dominant set of traits on one end, and the most submissive on the other. Most of us have traits that lie somewhere in between, and many of us slide up and down that continuum. This entire analogy is further complicated by other often conflicting issues, in that a dominant or a submissive is not merely a compendium of personality traits. Plus people are not necessarily dominant and submissive in all areas of their life. However, you can look at someone's personality as a whole, and make conjectures about their dominance (or submission) and most especially, how that relates to your own self. I will take LadyP as an example, since most know her and she is a remarkable good sport. In my mind at least, LadyP is very dominant female. Her strength of character and personality are at least on par if not exceeding my own. (I don't run across that very often). Sorry, in my opinion, her dominance is not in my head. I'm willing to speculate few run into LadyP and think: "Well shit, what a wuss." Now, does Lady P have some softer more submissive sides to her character? I am quiet sure she does, she appears to be a fairly well rounded person. My point being, I think most of us can agree, LadyP gives off a very dominant vibe. Now, does that mean she can dominant everyone who agrees to that statement? Hell no. There is that unmistakeable yet impossible to explain thing we call chemistry. And it's there, or it isn't. Without it, all the dominance in the world is not going to engender an appropriately submissive response. There have been many studies done about this chemistry, b/c let's face it, it's fascinating. Certain physical changes occur when people are attracted to one another: eyes dilating, nostrils flaring, blood pressure increase, etc. The chemical response to a particular individual we call attraction is not in your head. How the individual processes that attraction is in your head. B/c people get together, not just based on strong physical attraction, but on the ways their personalities mesh and compliment one another, and on what each perceive as their possible potential. So Hannah came close. Her statement wasn't really total poppycock, I just like the word.
_____________________________
|