RE: Cynical assumptions. (Full Version)

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



Message

juliaoceania -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/1/2006 7:16:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Why are you accusing a member of this board of wife beating, which is a crime?


He's using a rhetorical catch 22 statement julie. No matter how you answer,it makes you look bad. yes,or no.


He did not make anyone else look bad in my mind



SusanofO -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/1/2006 7:17:31 AM)

Homestead:  You seem to have read the worst possible meaning into my previous post. I can be very needy - and also very independently functioning and adult-like. I am never needy with someone I don't know very, very well. Anyway - my opinion is this:

Some Dominants appreciate a submissive who "leans" on them, some don't.  I am waiting to seek a partner.  I know I am not ready. It isn't, however, due to my "dependency" or "emotional space" needs - and you are partly right (and also partly wrong) in concluding these needs all stem form my marriage and it's lack of intimacy. Although I will say that after being in it that - being with anyone who finds "difficult" to express their emotions, or can't "get close" to anyone is going to be a big, huge red flag to me. It doesn't really matter to me if anyone thinks I have "issues" becauseI feel this way, or not. 

I am not going to wait years, or even months, for a partner to "get over" something that prohibits having a close relationship. They can define "close" however they want to - but if they can't (or have never) done it, it's going to be a problem for me. I am not an unsympathetic person, but - I have been on the wrong end of a person who themself could not admit they had "issues" and was very good at trying to make it my fault because they weren't grown up enough to face their own. I can't respect that - and certainly can't picture myself being"led" by someone who would be that transparently destructive. 

I've already been around that block. I have decided it's not my job to: Be someone's therapist, or break through their hard-as-rock defenses. Part of the reason I am seeing a counsellor now is because I am trying to have enough grace not to drag any other unsuspecting person into my possible "issues". But, part of my preferences are just the way I am. There are as many kinds of submissives, probably, as there are Dominants. I am probably wrong to even attempt lump any of them together in one basket.

I think the "role" one seeks depends on where one feels their needs are best met - and I attach no judgment to it. I don't care what other people do - I never have. That is why I am continually mystified when other people do care (or seem to care). It's ludicrous to me - because they don't have any control over it anyway (unless the person in quesiton is thier own submissive or slave).      



WhipTheHip -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/1/2006 7:23:45 AM)

juliaoceania wrote:> It is almost like going to a forum for Black people and making > huge stereotyping statements about them, like saying "Black > people tend to be good at sports  True.  There is a good historical reason for this. > they all like rap music False.   I surely hope you understand how prejudiced and bigoted you sound.  
> I do not understand why you hang out with > subs/slaves/dom/mes if you think that we are all > either abused or abusive.  Either doormats or > domineering narcistic assholes..  If I were into drugs, I would want to know whereyou get yours.  > there seems to be very little respect for the lifestyle > or the people that practice it  in your remarks... All I can do is scratch my head.



Homestead -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/1/2006 7:25:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

Homestead:  My opinion is this: Some Dominants appreciate a submissive who "leans" on them, some don't.  I am waiting to seek a partner.  I know I am not ready. It isn't, however, due to my "dependency" or "emotional space" needs - and you are partly right (and also partly wrong) in concluding these needs all stem form my marriage and it's lack of intimacy. Prt of it is just the way I am. There are as many kinds of submissives, probably, as there are Dominants. I am probably wrong to even attenpt lump any of them together in one basket.

I think the "role" one seeks depends on where one feels their neds are best met - and I attach no judgment to it. I don't care what other people do - I never have. That is why I am continually mystified when other people do care (or seem to care). It's ludicrous to me - because thye don't have any control over it anyway (unless the person in quesiton is thier own submissive or slave).      


I know myself and my emotional bents pretty well. I tend to be pretty easy going and laid back. Clingy dramatic types tend to throw me off balance, and distract me from what I need to get done in day to day life. And above all, I need to be functional and make a living. So unless someone wants to work WITH me in the business, I'm going to just be doing my work during those hours. And I work a lot of hours.

During time off, I enjoy pleasant company. I'm caring, humorous and very communicative. I also have a pretty wild imagination, and am very skilled and creative in making  things I come up with into realities. It's the nature of an artist.

So if a girl cannot make art WITH me, the likelyhood of me making it FOR her are fairly low. I despise laziness of mind and body.

THAT is what I care about-the rest of you are on your own.



Homestead -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/1/2006 7:29:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

Homestead:  You seem to have read the worst possible meaning into my previous post. I can see where this might happen, but part of me feels truly misunderstood by that. Anyway - my opinion is this:

Some Dominants appreciate a submissive who "leans" on them, some don't.  I am waiting to seek a partner.  I know I am not ready. It isn't, however, due to my "dependency" or "emotional space" needs - and you are partly right (and also partly wrong) in concluding these needs all stem form my marriage and it's lack of intimacy. Although I will say that after being in it that - being with anyone who finds "difficult" to express their emotions, or can't "get close" to anyone is going to be a big, huge red flag to me. It doesn't really matter to me if anyone thinks I have "issues" becauseI feel this way, or not. 

I am not going to wait "years" for a partner to "get over" something that prohibits having a close relationship. Thye can define "close" however they want to - but if they can't (or have never) done it, it's going to be a problem. for me anyway. I've already been aroud that block. I have decided it's not my job to: Be someone's therapist, or break through their hard-as-rock defenses. Part of the reason I am seeing a counsellor now is because I am trying to have enough grace not to drag any other unsuspecting person into my possible "issues". But, part of my preferences are just the way I am. There are as many kinds of submissives, probably, as there are Dominants. I am probably wrong to even attenpt lump any of them together in one basket.

I think the "role" one seeks depends on where one feels their needs are best met - and I attach no judgment to it. I don't care what other people do - I never have. That is why I am continually mystified when other people do care (or seem to care). It's ludicrous to me - because thye don't have any control over it anyway (unless the person in quesiton is thier own submissive or slave).      


And as far as the therapy issue,very good idea. Too many here seem to think they are amatuer shrinks.

When what they really are, is incompetent.



WhipTheHip -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/1/2006 7:31:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead
It's also quite possible for people to be disingenuous, and use multiple profiles deceptively.
I think that is what is being objected to here.[&:]


I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt,
and not making cynical assumptions.  I don't see
multiple profiles as being deceptive or disingenuous.
People can be looking for opposite things.  And
the individuals they meet can make the difference
as to which they choose.



juliaoceania -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/1/2006 7:32:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
I do not call this sort of person a "dominant" , I call them a domineering ass, no matter what the sex. My Dom is extremely easy going, doesn't sweat the small stuff, and is extremely disciplined in himself. The person you describe above sounds like a selfish asshole, and a good dominant is not a selfish dominant that does not take his submissive into account. An uncompromising dominant wouldn't keep me for long. I  love to give my Dom everything he wants, but someone who is uncompromising and in control over me would be insufferable.. the two do not go together in my mind.


It is hard to communicate with words since
different words mean different things to each
of us.  When I think of a dominant person,
a certain kind of image comes to mind. 
When you think of a dominant person, 
an entirely different person might come
to mind.  We all speak from our own
personal experiences.   It is hard to
describe the color red to a man born
blind.  If you have only experienced 
six feet tall tables, it is hard to understand 
how anyone can eat at a table.  I am
limited by my personal experiences.  I
wish that wasn't the case.    
 


I agree it is hard to communicate when people have such a different definition of the word they are using. Again we get into a situation where we are talking apples and oranges. I could start a thread about whether people here thought "dominant" meant selfish, self absorbed person that was uncompromising... I am thinking that many people would not see themselves or their partners this way... in some ways it is an insult to dominants that you categorize them this way, and I would not do that to a group of people. It is almost like going to a forum for Black people and making huge stereotyping statements about them, like saying "Black people tend to be good at sports and they all like rap music", you would be either laughed at or you would be ridiculed for such statements. I see no difference between generalizing by ethnicity or sexual orientation. If you made the statement that all gay men love interior design and fashion, that would also be eroneous. I am not picking on you, but I surely hope you understand how prejudiced and bigoted you sound.

I do not understand why you hang out with subs/slaves/dom/mes if you think that we are all either abused or abusive. Either doormats or domineering narcistic assholes.. there seems to be very little respect for the lifestyle or the people that practice it  in your remarks... This is perhaps not intentional and since message boards are two dimensional communication devices, I will not be offended, but I just have to wonder what your real point is in being here if you think so ill of us all.


Im quoting the full text of my post so WTH cannot misrperesent me as a bigot by twistng my words out of context... I am done with him forever more.



SusanofO -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/1/2006 7:32:39 AM)

Homestead: Well, it's grief counselling, but it's pretty all-purpose as far as counselling goes. And it has been a huge help to me.

- Susan 



WhipTheHip -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/1/2006 7:36:05 AM)

> Too many here seem to think they are amatuer
> shrinks. When what they really are, is incompetent.
 
This is, of course, your professional opinion, right?  LOL



darkinshadows -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/1/2006 7:41:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead

quote:

ORIGINAL: darkinshadows

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

Homestead: Probably it would be, I agree, but - I can imagine there might be people who honestly don't think about doing that.
Maybe they will read this thread and do it?

- Susan


Trust is a key issue here. Being duplicitous by having multiple and conflicting profiles is a really great way to screw yourself, if and when a potential partner finds out what you have done.
 
Thats you assuming they havent already mentioned they have two profiles.  Your judging everyone on one issue - whether they are trying to fool people or not.  What you are doin is generalising everyone who has two profiles as must being switches... or assuming they are with holding any information from a potential partner... and that may not be true.
 
Peace and Rapture



Honesty would be mentioning thier OTHER profiles in each one, no?

Agreed, but that wasn't what was said.  There was a general statement about conflicting profiles.  People can have conflicting profiles, they can have conflicting personalities.  As long as they are honest in any relationship from the beginning, then there is no deception going on.
 
And that still does not make them a switch.
 
Peace and Rapture



WhipTheHip -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/1/2006 7:41:43 AM)

> WhiptheHip - you are gonna wonder what you started about 10 posts
> from now. Women are gonna be writing you all day, now - be careful
> what you wish for, sweetie! [:D]  Either you are a closet genius, or a real
> empathic guy I do think you are), or just looking for extra creative scenes...
 
How about all three!



darkinshadows -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/1/2006 7:44:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

Homestead: I added more to my comment (if you want to re-read it). I am talking about switching roles, not simply "topping" or "bottoming".

- Susan

I know this is going to sound pedantic - but there is nothing 'simple' about topping nor bottoming at times.
 
Peace and Rapture



SusanofO -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/1/2006 7:46:53 AM)

WhiptheHip: Yes - all three! [;)][:D]

- Susan



WhipTheHip -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/1/2006 7:47:47 AM)

> I have been quite entertained by him, saying that someone
> cannot be entirely Dom or sub, based on his switchability. 
 
I never said this.
 
> I was also entertained by his very nice generalization
> that all conservatives see classes, and all liberals see people.

And I never said this.  It is funny how certain people add the
the word, "all" in front of a true generalization to make it false.
Funny, how some people have to change the words of
others in order to dispute them.




SusanofO -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/1/2006 7:48:35 AM)

darkinshadows: I know there's not. I am not saying one is "better" (bottoming, toppoing or switching roles entirely). Hell, I am getting really confused by trying to just follow this thread! No offense intended to anyone.[:D]

- Susan



WhipTheHip -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/1/2006 7:53:31 AM)

Hi Susan of O
 
> Because although I think I am 90% submissive.
 
Might, you not be better off looking for somone who
is 90% dominant, instead of someone who is 100%
dominant?
 
Warmest regards,
Michael

 



Homestead -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/1/2006 7:54:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip

> Too many here seem to think they are amatuer
> shrinks. When what they really are, is incompetent.
 
This is, of course, your professional opinion, right?  LOL


I call em as I see em. Look at the results.



darkinshadows -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/1/2006 7:56:00 AM)

nodding...thats because everyone is talking about different subjects susan.
 
You have whip, who does not identify with cynisiam.(sp? ) - He preferes to give people the benefit of the doubt and does not assume the worse if something is not in a profile - which is what many people new to sites like these are in the beginning.
 
You have a handful of others, who automatically assume that someone who has multiple profiles is a switch and should identify as one.  Wrong.  Neither of these are true.
 
You have another section who believe that if you have multiple profiles, this should be mentioned in each profile.  Again, this isn't a set rule, its just opinions and doesnt make the person with multiple personalities a liar or a fraud - unless they purposefully mislead people into believing it is their only profile.  If they are beginnning a relationship with people - then they will inform them when it is relevant.  It doesn't have to be in a profile.
 
But people are taking everything and mixing up all the discussion.
Peace and Rapture



Homestead -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/1/2006 8:01:34 AM)

All we can do is express individual prefferences. I'm pretty pedantic and will look askance at someone who seems flakey and inconsistent. It's not up to me to decide who someone is-they have to do that for themselves. So my doubts have to do with wondering if they have enough self realization to make an informed decision about thier needs.

While they may not be lying overtly, lying to yourself is usually the root of many other lies.



SusanofO -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (9/1/2006 8:02:46 AM)

darkinshadows: Yes, yes. Double yes. I loved your last post!

WhiptheHip: If I could really find a Dominant who would actually admit to this, (being "just" 90% Dominant) then, yes. But then again - it might be hard to "measure" that according to any standard none would see as arbitrary. You've seen the results on this thread (or maybe that was your point. If so, kudos to you on your sense of humor)! 

- Susan



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875