RE: Online domination (Full Version)

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



Message


DaddySatyr -> RE: Online domination (12/13/2011 9:23:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: notthetongs

Eh... I don't think this is a situation in which one can say, "Maybe you're just not willing to submit."



I was aiming for the more general question, honestly.

I can't walk up to some cute young lady at a BDSM or D/s type function who states that she's submissive and expect her to go and fetch me a glass of soda.

I guess I was trying to make the point that a dominant doesn't so much "control" as they (hopefully) graciously accept what is offered. True, wording might be a bit different (the "command" may come before the acquiesence) but, without submission, what is there to be dominated?

It's the old joke: Q: You know what they call a leader with no followers? A: Just a guy, out for a walk.



Peace and comfort,



Michael





seekerofslut -> RE: Online domination (12/13/2011 9:25:50 AM)

I've never understood the CAM thing. Ok, fine, I can fire mine up, kill my bandwidth and show I'm me but this whole performance thing on cam is way to weird. To request someone use one without tit for tat is a big red flag for me. 




LillyBoPeep -> RE: Online domination (12/13/2011 9:26:50 AM)

Some people can control, not just "accept." I guess it's a differennt "type" of experience.

That's kinda like the old "who REALLY has the power in the relationship?" topic.




DaddySatyr -> RE: Online domination (12/13/2011 9:32:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep

That's kinda like the old "who REALLY has the power in the relationship?" topic.



I would never wade into those torrid waters. No, I was making the point that it's kind of a "chicken or the egg" thing. I don't think it's a power thing. I think, just like many other facets of life, we're inter-dependent.

Who cuts the barber's hair?

Who pulls the dentist's teeth?

Who goes to go fetch my soda? (That one is the one I would really like answered LOL)



Peace and comfort,



Michael




NiceButMeanGirl -> RE: Online domination (12/13/2011 10:02:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Who goes to go fetch my soda? (That one is the one I would really like answered LOL)


I think answer is you, unless you have a submissive of your own.




LillyBoPeep -> RE: Online domination (12/13/2011 10:27:00 AM)

I don't thinnk any of those things are related to this. Just because there is potential with random sub women online doesn't justify or cause douchebaggery on part of random dudes who want to Insta-Dom strangers. It really isn't a chicken before the egg scenario. Not at all.




DaddySatyr -> RE: Online domination (12/13/2011 10:29:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep

It really isn't a chicken before the egg scenario. Not at all.



One more time: I was writing more in a general way. This situation sounds like a mess (is that what you wanted to hear?). However, the reason why there are guys like this is because there are girls that engage them.



Peace and comfort,



Michael





kalikshama -> RE: Online domination (12/13/2011 10:33:18 AM)

quote:

the reason why there are guys like this is because there are girls that engage them.


The putative girls are actually men PRETENDING to be hot bi female subs.




kalikshama -> RE: Online domination (12/13/2011 10:34:37 AM)

quote:

Q: You know what they call a leader with no followers? A: Just a guy, out for a walk.


[:D]




DaddySatyr -> RE: Online domination (12/13/2011 10:36:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

The putative girls are actually men PRETENDING to be hot bi female subs.



Well played!




LillyBoPeep -> RE: Online domination (12/13/2011 10:41:22 AM)

No, the reason there are guys who act like this is because there are people who, regardless of audience, act outside of generally understood bounds od tact, mannners, and politeness. People act like idiots because they are idiots; meeting people who go along with it is haphazard.

Theoretically these dudes woul have met enough women who didn't respond which would prompt them to change their game, right? But they don't. The idiocy originates from annd is sustained by them and their faulty beliefs.




DaddySatyr -> RE: Online domination (12/13/2011 10:44:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep

Theoretically these dudes woul have met enough women who didn't respond which would prompt them to change their game, right? But they don't. The idiocy originates from annd is sustained by them and their faulty beliefs.



Correct! Which also supports the theory that enough of them (or, at least this guy) are meeting enough "ladies" that ARE encouraging them. That is exactly why they don't "change their game". It is what I said, from the beginning.



Peace and comfort,



Michael




kalikshama -> RE: Online domination (12/13/2011 10:44:44 AM)

quote:

That's kinda like the old "who REALLY has the power in the relationship?" topic.


Change "relationship" to "scene" and you've given me a great segue:

http://www.niu.edu/user/tj0bjs1/papers/scclm09.pdf

With respect to control, some SM practitioners claim that
the bottom is truly in control of the SM scene, and in the
larger context in which the scene takes place, the bottom does
wield considerable control. Before many scenes begin, the
bottom and top negotiate the activities that will take place,
with the bottom setting limits on the type and intensity of the
activities. During the scene, the bottom can use safewords
that indicate to the top that the activities must slow down or
change or that the scene must end immediately. Thus, the
bottom exerts control both before and during the scene.

However, during the scene, the top controls the nature and intensity
of the activities, and particularly for scenes involving
bondage, the bottom must rely on the top to stay within the
negotiated parameters of the scene and to respect any safewords
the bottom uses.

In addition, some bottoms avoid negotiation and safewords
as a means of surrendering more control
(Easton&Liszt, 1998). In the present studies, the rise
in cortisol observed in bottoms but not tops might reflect the
control the top exerts during the scene itself despite the
control some bottoms exert in negotiation and in the use of
safewords.




heartcream -> RE: Online domination (12/13/2011 11:02:01 AM)

Gee, I might know who you are talking about OP. For me, I would not cam with someone until I established intent and their relationship status. Many mens here want to skip that point and get right to the next phase. Even well ariticulated "smart" men. I can smell a rat pretty well and this guy is clearly one. He is a dickwad. I am not really going to "date" someone across the pond but I am afterall a person and if they cant that part of the equation right well go dickwad off somewhere else. I would not assent to anything unless I felt I knew who and what I was going to g'head with.




Lockit -> RE: Online domination (12/13/2011 11:15:15 AM)

I see this two ways. You find uber dom without a cam, wanting to play his uber dom game and you talked to him more than once? Your view of this type of thing is it is a joke... so why didn't you laugh and just keep on truckin... or vomiting and being sick without him? Why the need to start a thread over something you found a joke? Isn't this kind of commonplace around here?

What was your motive in talking to him once you found out what he was about? We can blame the uber doms forever and a day... but what is wrong with those going along with them or entertaining the thought of one moment of communication with these jokes?




LillyBoPeep -> RE: Online domination (12/13/2011 11:21:33 AM)

No, that's not what you said. They allow one single response to stand as proof that the tactic works because of their faulty belief system. They believe something and take any small thing as proof, in the face of aaaallll the other women who don't respond. I'm pretty positive that it's not an even split.
One woman out of 100 is not enough to declare proof except for an idiot desperate to believe that being an idiot will work.




ResidentSadist -> RE: Online domination (12/13/2011 11:41:00 AM)

Put your cam on your pet guinea pig... then tell him he caught you, you're not real.  You're really a lab animal that can type and surf the internet.  




jwp -> RE: Online domination (12/13/2011 4:06:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lockit

I see this two ways. You find uber dom without a cam, wanting to play his uber dom game and you talked to him more than once? Your view of this type of thing is it is a joke... so why didn't you laugh and just keep on truckin... or vomiting and being sick without him? Why the need to start a thread over something you found a joke? Isn't this kind of commonplace around here?





I only spoke with him once.  Maybe I wasn't clear on that in my original post.  Point is, I did laugh and keep on trucking.  The point over this thread is the question I have asked.  Obviously you just want to try to bring me down or something, hence the reason for your post.  You didn't have to reply to it.  Couldn't you have read it, thought your comments to yourself, and moved on to the next one?




Lockit -> RE: Online domination (12/13/2011 4:12:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lockit

I see this two ways. You find uber dom without a cam, wanting to play his uber dom game and you talked to him more than once? Your view of this type of thing is it is a joke... so why didn't you laugh and just keep on truckin... or vomiting and being sick without him? Why the need to start a thread over something you found a joke? Isn't this kind of commonplace around here?





I only spoke with him once.  Maybe I wasn't clear on that in my original post.  Point is, I did laugh and keep on trucking.  The point over this thread is the question I have asked.  Obviously you just want to try to bring me down or something, hence the reason for your post.  You didn't have to reply to it.  Couldn't you have read it, thought your comments to yourself, and moved on to the next one?



That's not how it works on a message board. People read, respond and sometimes may miss a point of interest, as I did. I wasn't trying to bring you down. You continued to talk to a jerk and got a laugh out of it... good deal. How could my misunderstanding something in or lacking in your post and my response bring you down? If its that easy... you're in for a tough ride.




DesFIP -> RE: Online domination (12/13/2011 5:02:26 PM)

At the same time, the op has announced on the basis of this one guy that anyone who wants online only is by definition not real. And that's not true either.

I've known of people in ill health who can't do anything in real time, but miss it, and are happy to get into an online relationship.

I've known of people who kept a relationship going online when they were on different continents for several years until one of them could get a visa and move.

I know that lots of us met our partners online and started the relationship that way.

So just because the op met the equivalent of a guy at the bar slipping off his wedding ring, hoping you won't notice the line and will go to his hotel room for the night, does not mean that nobody who has ever fell into conversation at a bar while waiting for a table to be free hasn't ever developed a relationship out of it.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.09375