RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (Full Version)

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



Message

SlaveSubtoserve -> RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (4/18/2007 8:37:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pixelslave

quote:

ORIGINAL: TexasMaam

True enough, pixel, however, consider the attorneys and accountants I've met who were raised and educated to be gentlemen and successful businessmen who were just asses.

Being raised in a given manner does not guarantee that the man will grow up to be anything other than a jerk, if at heart he's just a jerk.  I have met My share of well educated, well heeled silver spooned 'gentlemen' who were NOTHING but jerks.

Sad, but true!

TM



Ma'am, I'm doing my best not to bust out laughing my bottom off!  Many of the 'silver spooned gentlemen' you speak of were taught what I'll refer to as 'table manners & social graces'; the ones expected of their social class and not how to be the 'gentlemen at heart' you refer to.  The latter does come partly from a place deep in the heart and is fostered through being mentored by men and women in a growing boy's life who teach him to respect and show the proper regard for women they deserve.  The two are very different things. [&:]
 
When I was in college, they definitely didn't offer any classes that I can recall on how to be a gentleman.  Not to sound disrespectful, but the professions you mention, aren't exactly high on my personal list of those I think of as being comprised of people known for having a lot of personal integrity.  Much of Corporate America and the business scandals of the last few years would serve as fine examples of that!  Here in Texas, the Enron scandal in particular comes to mind. [image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m23.gif[/image]
 
As with any generalizations, there are of course always exceptions.  For anyone whom I've offended, please pardon me as my statements above were not intended to be of a personal nature.
 
The bottom line is that there's a lot more to being a gentleman than having good table manners, knowing which spoon or fork to use at a given time, opening doors, or carrying bags for the ladies.  A gentleman also has integrity of character such that being honest with both himself and others in his life is important enough to him that his word still means something to him.  For me personally, it's not because I care what others I don't even know will think, so much as it is because I care what I think of myself.  There are many other things I could say about being a gentleman, but I suspect we both know what I'm talking about and I really don't want to hijack this thread. [;)]
 
You're right, there are lots of "jerks" out there who could care less about how their actions affect others just so long as they get what they want.  Sadly, they affect us all. [X(]
 
 - pixel



.....it does raise the question of whether the FemmeDomme world attracts/has a disproportionate share of non-gentlemanly males than the vanilla world --- as it does sound that way or it may just be a function of the communciations connection with Internet, etc.????



SlaveSubtoserve -> RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (4/18/2007 8:46:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

When you elevate being a slave above the relationship with a guy, most will will balk. This does not surprise me in the least.



.....though i think the best approach and most realistic and practical is when i see a Domme who advertises that She is looking for a sub/slave who will fullfill a multitude of roles including friend, servant, lover, slave, companion, sub,  confidante, slut, etc.--- as that's in reality what any relationship is going to require and depend on in the longer run anyways.



savannasub -> RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (4/18/2007 9:04:29 AM)

theres ample female women owning complete male slaves as is gentleman owning complete female slaves although not many people can live up to TPE.  the problem for dommeswomen here on this cm site is these dommewomen dont want men who are submissive in just the sexual relations areas. people mix up the two of bottoms and submissives and they are not the same and this causes the womens dommes to appear they are asking too much.  women are talking to bottoms *the majority of men here are bottoms* so the women are running around in circles.  its as if being in a room of 100 men and talking about submissiveness to 90men who are bottoms and 10 are submissives *the room of men are going to say {you demand to much} to the womens dommes but thats only for the reason these men are not subissives ,they are bottoms.

i would venture to say to these dommeswomen ask cm for a cateogory  "Bottom" for these men and a corresponding sextion label "Top" for the bottom men so these types  people can talk together amongst themselves and get things going and so the submissives and the dommeswomen can start talking to the write and correct ones and no more frustration and mix ups of two different worlds.



SlaveSubtoserve -> RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (4/18/2007 9:17:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

quote:

ORIGINAL: petitedomme21

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


I did not address pixelslave's response because I understand what he is trying to say.  But I also feel it is a matter of the male point of view as opposed to the Female point of view.  He thinks We seek perfection and that is not going to happen.  I agree that perfection is not going to happen.  I disagree that we are seeking it.  We are seeking something that is outside of societal norms.  And that makes it much harder to find.  There are many who think they want this, but they really do not have the skills to make their normalcy the polar opposite of what they have been raised by family and society to understand is the male role and attitude.  As long as they can put on the mantle of submission when it is convenient, they can usually pull it off for a while.  But for many, the societal expectations are so ingrained, they do not even realize they are "balking".  They think they are being reasonable. 


Yup- and this above is so true and difficult for us to overcome unfort.



SlaveSubtoserve -> RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (4/18/2007 9:37:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joyinslavery

quote:

ORIGINAL: subexploring

In general, I've had better luck introducing some domme elements into my vanilla matches than trying to find vanilla compatibility with domme women. 




Hey subexloring!

I agree.  It seems to fly in the face of common sense but I also (tend to) find this to be true. 

Sad really.

Best of luck to you brother. 






i agree with the above also--- especially when the practicalities of distance are also considered.  And the D/s avenues of worship and obedience are good starters to intro a vanilla woman and see if she is a latent Domme........as some in fact are.



SlaveSubtoserve -> RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (4/18/2007 9:50:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IamDifferent1

Though i am but a slave-boi-wannabe, i feel as if i can relate a good deal to many of the frustrations expressed here by the Dommes. But...it makes logical sense that this wouldn't be any easier finding true love AND compatibility here than it is in the vanilla world.



....i agree and  think that is part of the problem here that acknowledging all our mututal interests in the D/s life still does not solve the problem easily of finding the right mate in it--- very analagous to the vanilla world where everyone wants to be happy in their relationships also.



SlaveSubtoserve -> RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (4/18/2007 9:56:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: savannasub

theres ample female women owning complete male slaves as is gentleman owning complete female slaves although not many people can live up to TPE.  the problem for dommeswomen here on this cm site is these dommewomen dont want men who are submissive in just the sexual relations areas. people mix up the two of bottoms and submissives and they are not the same and this causes the womens dommes to appear they are asking too much.  women are talking to bottoms *the majority of men here are bottoms* so the women are running around in circles.  its as if being in a room of 100 men and talking about submissiveness to 90men who are bottoms and 10 are submissives *the room of men are going to say {you demand to much} to the womens dommes but thats only for the reason these men are not subissives ,they are bottoms.

i would venture to say to these dommeswomen ask cm for a cateogory  "Bottom" for these men and a corresponding sextion label "Top" for the bottom men so these types  people can talk together amongst themselves and get things going and so the submissives and the dommeswomen can start talking to the write and correct ones and no more frustration and mix ups of two different worlds.



....excellent tip for improving CM!



undergroundsea -> RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (4/18/2007 11:18:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: savannasub
theres ample female women owning complete male slaves as is gentleman owning complete female slaves although not many people can live up to TPE.  the problem for dommeswomen here on this cm site is these dommewomen dont want men who are submissive in just the sexual relations areas. people mix up the two of bottoms and submissives and they are not the same and this causes the womens dommes to appear they are asking too much. 


I think you are right that similar preference levels for power exchange are important for compatibility.

I would like to add that I think there is a broader spectrum for submission than simply a binary set of bottoms and slaves, and that this broad spectrum of where the power exchange preference lies exists in both sexes. Furthermore, there is no universal definition of what submission is. For instance, I define bottom to be a person who enjoys receiving a sensation for the sake of the sensation as opposed to a D/s dynamic. To me, someone who submits sexually only but along D/s principles is still a submissive at some level. For this reason, I think it is a good idea for two prospective partners to compare notes on how they define D/s to determine compatibility, and then to define their level of D/s for their relationship.

Cheers,

Sea



savannasub -> RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (4/18/2007 11:51:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea

To me, someone who submits sexually only but along D/s principles is still a submissive at some level.
Cheers,
Sea


could u clarify the underlined portion?




savannasub -> RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (4/18/2007 12:10:17 PM)

the word submissive means to submit.  you cant call yoruself a submissive if you come with  certain conditions under  which you will only submit.  Masters call femals subs with conditions a bottom and the dommeswomen should right along do so to.   a master or mistress has the final say to their submissives even after long discussions.  pity people dont adhere to the tradional terms of d/s so as to not confuse expectations.  a submissive who expects to have the final word in disagreements should submit to a top and call themselves what they are, a bottom.  sub womens and men who wnat to submit sometimes when it suits them should be upfront in the beginnings so the lifestyle masters will know they are talking with a bottom, sub-partime peoples.  



TigressFL -> RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (4/18/2007 1:56:39 PM)

quote:

the word submissive means to submit. you cant call yoruself a submissive if you come with certain conditions under which you will only submit. Masters call femals subs with conditions a bottom and the dommeswomen should right along do so to. a master or mistress has the final say to their submissives even after long discussions. pity people dont adhere to the tradional terms of d/s so as to not confuse expectations. a submissive who expects to have the final word in disagreements should submit to a top and call themselves what they are, a bottom. sub womens and men who wnat to submit sometimes when it suits them should be upfront in the beginnings so the lifestyle masters will know they are talking with a bottom, sub-partime peoples. ORIGINAL: savannasub


I disagree with you greatly lol

In my opinion:

1. A bottom is someone that is in it for the BDSM "play" and it has ZERO to do with domination and submission in any form. There is no submission, there is no serving, there is no surrender. It is about the kink, period.

2. A submissive submits to negotiated and agreed upon areas only and retains all rights, limits and safewords as they so desire and negotiate. A sumbissive is not goign to allow someone to have total control over how they behave at all times, every decision that the owner may want to make for them which could be very extensive. They expect to be treated at a more "equal" level in at least a few aspects in the relationship. Many view slavery as being a doormat becase they cannot relate to or wrap their head around giving anyone that much control.

3. A slave enters into the relationship agreeing to surrender their right to "make decisions"  in the relationship, their limits become whatever their owners limits are (or whatever their owner "allows") and and they are literally viewed as "human property".

Above is how I view the differences. That fact is that there will be many people that agree with me and many people that will get pissed off at my point of view lol There will also be many people that assume I am making a judgement call and actually saying that one is greater than the other (I am soo sick of that BS whiney debate lol) which is not even remotely close to true! I simply view each one very "differently". In addition, many people make assumptions as to how each one are treated. Many assume submissive are actually treated better than slave which is by far the truth. I know situations where the submissives where treated worse than any slave I have ever encountered and I know siutations where the slave was treated rather poorly as well. The distinction between what each role is has ZERO to do with "how they are treated" by their owner.

Rarely do people see eye to eye on this topic lol

To each their own,

Tigress~FL




GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (4/18/2007 3:02:28 PM)

Sea!
 
I am so sorry that I mixed up you and pixel.  I never meant to, and I do want to say that I admire both of you very much and always enjoy reading your well thought out posts and points of view. 
 
To both of you...I am not saying that either of you said anything specifically, but trying to "check understanding" by letting you know how I read the bottom (no pun intended) line of these particular points of view.  I think it was well pointed out that I could, in fact, be in a room with 100 "submissives" and find that 90 of them would never give over to Me the amount of control I desire.  I would not go so far as to say they are all "bottoms" although I think many of them might be more on the bottom side and less on the submissive side.  But I also make it abundantly clear, in My profile, how I view slavery in this lifestyle, what that entails, and that, in that context of My definitions, I do seek a slave. 
Now I am sure you would not believe how much email I get that says "I want to be your slave".  They immediately fail because, in most cases they do not even show up on My "Who's viewing me", or they did not really pay attention to what I request and send me three sentences or less.  These supplicants do not even try to make a case for themselves.  If they can't take the time to show that they are sincerely interested in Me, whether it might work out in the long run or not, and they can't put forth the effort to take a little time to visit the boards (as I request) and provide Me with information (as I request), then I have a problem believing they will be able to serve Me in the manner I would prefer.  (That's a nice way of saying "My way").  A quick stab in the beginning is the harbinger of lack luster "when I am in the mood, Ma'am" service later. 
I have no objections to the fact that each relationship is individual.  I do object to the generalization that Dominas who would like a relationship based upon My or very similar preferences are all considered unreasonable and asking too much of every single male out there.  This may be true in many instances (more's the pity) but it is out there.  I do not like receiving emails from those who find Me attractive and insist that they want to "serve" Me, and then start immediately negotiating areas of submission.  Either get to know Me, and decide that I am, indeed, not the one for you, or start to trust and build a level of confidence.   For Me, M/s means does My way or the highway.  So any interested person thinking s/he may want to submit to Me,. better find out of My way is reasonablely comfortable for them.  Any relationship that is completey easy and comfortable is rare, but also think about what submission is supposed to mean.  If one is only suibmitting based on what is already completely comfortable and desireable (not cruel or unusual) then how much is one really submitting? 
I try to make it clear that I am a reasonable person, and I do not make quick decisions based on emotion.  At least not most of the time.  *Smile*  But as you say, if you have a very reasonable and logical reason why something is important, I have a different reason and logic on My side.  In the end, I either win, or the slave leaves.  Most of the time, he was never My slave in the first place, because they quickly realize that I mean what I say, and there is not any wiggle room in most matters.  I actually find it amusing that I get asked lots of questions and then I am challenged, in subtle ways, to see if I "forgot" or if I will change My mind.  I get challenged with so many "what if's" I am sure there will always be a new one for any boy who is afraid to take that plunge, trust, and move into a relationship he says he wants and needs, despite his ingrained, "I am the guy and I should be in control".
 
A couple of examples: 
 
1.  The "slave" is in the habit of having 2 beers everyday when he returns home from work.  I am opposed to this habit and don't want it happening under My roof.  He then proceeds to explain to Me that I am being unreasonable about something so silly, and insists that I am rigid.  I would not marry a man who had to drink every day, so why would I be rigid if I say "No" to that habit?  But it happens, much more often than you may realize.  I am not saying there will never be another beer, or another glass of wine, but if you can't adjust to My comfort level in this area, then you are not for Me. 
 
2.  The slave has a large family and is expected at his Mother's house every Sunday for dinner and there is, on a normal basis, at least one other family obligation every week.  This is not going to work out for Me with My lifestyle.  But, suddenly, I am being unreasonable, and cutting someone off from family.

3.  A  "slave" is used to being on the computer each night to play games and or chat on instant messaging systems.  I do not do this, and would rather have him giving Me a massage or a manicure, or just running Me a bath and catching up on the ironing.  I am, once again, unreasonable, and I am not allowing him his necessary leisure time.
 
None of these things are, in and of themselves, anything earth shattering.  Certainly not anything that will affect a career or his actual quality of life.  If one is trying to get My  attention and impress Me, wouldn't he exhibit an ability to be flexible and realize  that his life is now to belong to Me and My preferences?  I am not going to cut off all outside social contact, but what I consider reasonable and constructive use of his time may not agree with what he considers reasonable and constructive use of his time.  Ergo, we are not meant to be together.
I also think, from My personal experiences, that many will see how far they can push and try to manipulate a Domina into thinking she is unreasonable because she does not think time should be spent in that manner.  It is an exit strategy.  And it is a way of maintaining control.
As has been stated here, many times, and it is so important, it does take time to really get to know someone.  Take the time to do that.  I do, and thus far, I have not found anyone who does not "balk" over things that are, honestly, very silly.  Forgive Me if I have to see this as a male character trait based upon societal norms, and the last stand of "I am the male and I have a right to My opinion and I should win at least some of the time."  Almost always, when this is occuring, it is a matter of male pride. 



undergroundsea -> RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (4/18/2007 5:35:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: savannasub

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
To me, someone who submits sexually only but along D/s principles is still a submissive at some level.
Cheers,
Sea

could u clarify the underlined portion?


Sure. I'll start with a man who has no interest in submission. I will call him pure vanilla. Then I will start with a man who likes to receive sensation without assuming any submissive posturing. I will call him a pure bottom.

Now let's consider a man who is submissive in the bedroom only. Suppose he likes to provide pleasure or be told what to do. And let's say he is not submissive outside the bedroom. In comparison to the vanilla and bottom men, he is further along the spectrum of submission. Therefore, I think even a bedroom submissive is a submissive at some level.

The idea of slavery or a marked imbalance in power appeals to me. But in the mix of things and in the big picture, I identify as a submissive. My goal with submission is not to achieve orgasm. I obtain psychological satisfaction from submission. And if I do orgasm, my submission does not go away after orgasm.  Therefore, I consider my submission to go beyond the bedroom or sex alone.

While I find appeal in the idea of slavery, the sum  that is me (my wants and aspirations in areas beyond submission) has me identify with a level different than where my submissive interests alone would put me. I can extend this idea to a bedroom submissive or a sexual submissive. The equilibrium point between how much he wants to submit, and what his other drives are may leave him at submission with respect to sex only. In my opinion, this level of submission is not wrong, for there are women whose interest in dominance is at the bedroom level only. It is instead a matter of compatibility.

I disagree with your definition of a submissive and of top and bottom. Amongst the permutations, I think you can have a dominant bottom and a submissive top.

TigressFl has conveyed very effectively the definitions with which I agree. I agree with her definition of the roles, and also that there is no universal definition for these roles. That said, intuitively (if what you describe is a submissive then what room does it leave for a slave?) and empirically (the number of people I have seen to hold the set of definitions she lists), I find the set of definition she lists to be a good set.

Cheers,

Sea



undergroundsea -> RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (4/18/2007 6:44:38 PM)

GoddessDustyGold,

You are welcome to call me whatever you like ;-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold
I do object to the generalization that Dominas who would like a relationship based upon My or very similar preferences are all considered unreasonable and asking too much of every single male out there.  This may be true in many instances (more's the pity) but it is out there.


You have a fair statement there. Clearly you identify with the M/s lifestyle and it is a question of compatibility. What might seem unreasonable to a submissive may be exactly what a slave seeks. It is easy to fall into the trap of viewing a matter through one's situation, and it takes recognition to take a step back for a broader look. To the extent I made that generalization, I apologize.

I will once again appreciate the discussion that has occurred here. I have been reflecting about the level of submission with which I identify, and asking myself about whether it could be greater.

I indeed find a charge in a greater loss of power. However, I see it to not fit the rest of me. My reflections make me feel that I could perhaps move towards a greater level of surrender. However, I think it would need to progress slowly--I think moving too fast might cause me to back away. And I think it would need to occur within the context of love and romantic submission. To elaborate, I don't feel an intrinsic drive to seek a greater surrender--I don't think a greater surrender is necessarily the correct way. So if it occurs, it would be for sake of my partner. It is also possible that it occurs because of changes within people (me in this case) that occur over time. I offer that simply as one datapoint in the mix of subs.

I don't have a clear grasp on what causes the reluctance with a greater level of surrender--I don't know how much of it is due to other drives (romantic, personal, more), how much due to fear of letting go that much, and how much due to pride and ego. And I don't now how much of this reluctance will melt when the right connection arrives.

The examples you give are fair. The ones about the beer and games are more clear and seem to be more about not wanting to let go of routine versus hesitation that has a basis. In the scenarios I was envisioning, there would be a reasonable and logical explanation for reluctance or concerns. For these two examples, I don't see any obvious grounds. In fact, it seems rather illogical--video games instead of giving a manicure? That's crazy! ;-)

The family example is a bit more blurry. There, it may indeed be a question of compatibility (importance given to family and keeping a tradition that has meaning) rather than surrendering routine.

My limits and boundaries and concerns usually reduce to one of a few root reasons. If there is a matter that conflicts with one of these root reasons, it would be upon me to explain why and how.

Thank you for the discussion here.

Cheers,

Sea



MistressDolly -> RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (4/18/2007 8:31:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea

He likes to provide pleasure or be told what to do.

Cheers,
Sea


:)  now that's the kind of man I like!

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea

And let's say he is not submissive outside the bedroom.

Cheers,
Sea


I think most men are not submissive outside the bedroom too.

:)




MistressDolly -> RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (4/18/2007 8:38:03 PM)

"He likes to provide pleasure or be told what to do. "

replacing the or with and is even sweeter :) especially when she has a lot of good and wise things to say. lol :)



Wickad -> RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (4/19/2007 1:51:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TigressFL

quote:

the word submissive means to submit. you cant call yoruself a submissive if you come with certain conditions under which you will only submit. Masters call femals subs with conditions a bottom and the dommeswomen should right along do so to. a master or mistress has the final say to their submissives even after long discussions. pity people dont adhere to the tradional terms of d/s so as to not confuse expectations. a submissive who expects to have the final word in disagreements should submit to a top and call themselves what they are, a bottom. sub womens and men who wnat to submit sometimes when it suits them should be upfront in the beginnings so the lifestyle masters will know they are talking with a bottom, sub-partime peoples. ORIGINAL: savannasub


I disagree with you greatly lol

In my opinion:

1. A bottom is someone that is in it for the BDSM "play" and it has ZERO to do with domination and submission in any form. There is no submission, there is no serving, there is no surrender. It is about the kink, period.

2. A submissive submits to negotiated and agreed upon areas only and retains all rights, limits and safewords as they so desire and negotiate. A sumbissive is not goign to allow someone to have total control over how they behave at all times, every decision that the owner may want to make for them which could be very extensive. They expect to be treated at a more "equal" level in at least a few aspects in the relationship. Many view slavery as being a doormat becase they cannot relate to or wrap their head around giving anyone that much control.

3. A slave enters into the relationship agreeing to surrender their right to "make decisions"  in the relationship, their limits become whatever their owners limits are (or whatever their owner "allows") and and they are literally viewed as "human property".

Above is how I view the differences. That fact is that there will be many people that agree with me and many people that will get pissed off at my point of view lol There will also be many people that assume I am making a judgement call and actually saying that one is greater than the other (I am soo sick of that BS whiney debate lol) which is not even remotely close to true! I simply view each one very "differently". In addition, many people make assumptions as to how each one are treated. Many assume submissive are actually treated better than slave which is by far the truth. I know situations where the submissives where treated worse than any slave I have ever encountered and I know siutations where the slave was treated rather poorly as well. The distinction between what each role is has ZERO to do with "how they are treated" by their owner.

Rarely do people see eye to eye on this topic lol

To each their own,

Tigress~FL




I couldn't agree more with this!!!

Though I am attached (attached and not cheating, I might add), I find that the part that is missing the most is the mind set I am seeking.  Yes, there is distance and sex/no-sex, etc but really ... for me it is the adherence to the societal norm that I find the biggest obstacle.

From reading most of the posts (I admit to skipping most of the last page) I keep finding little phrases that don't really sit right with me.  I'm not going to get into who said what here but the general disconnect  seems to be between Dominant women wanting men who truly submit vs. men who allow said Dominant women to 'dominate' them at their sufferance. 

The idea that a slave or submissive would negotiate how to spend joint income and seriously believe that they would be offering up more than an opinion, OR, that a slave or submissive would balk at having to do something they may not like to do and really believe that professing love of the Dominant would thus entitle them to a 'pass' on said chore .... these things smack of a tacit agreement with the societal norm.  This norm of course being that men are 'entitled' in our society and women are not.

I do not view my being 'entitled' as aberrant.  I see my giving instruction or direction as my right and I do so many times without really thinking about it.  Please do not mistake me, I'm not suggesting I'm a bossy sort but rather that if I want something done I tell the person doing it what I want, thank them for their time and move on - there isn't anything strange about it (well, in my eyes anyway - lol).   I find that my having to clarify being decisive and exacting strange, for if I were a Dominant man these same traits would be seen as obvious and highly desirable.

What I find the hardest thing to find in a slave is an adherence to my paradigm.  It is an attitude that pervades all aspects of someone's life, not just when it is 'allowed' because it is play time.  It is a core belief that I am in control because we both have agreed that I am.

I hope this made sense to you folks as it did seem a bit rambling to me but ... it's late at night and .... well, I'm off to bed - lol.

Wickad



GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (4/19/2007 3:34:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wickad

From reading most of the posts (I admit to skipping most of the last page) I keep finding little phrases that don't really sit right with me.  I'm not going to get into who said what here but the general disconnect  seems to be between Dominant women wanting men who truly submit vs. men who allow said Dominant women to 'dominate' them at their sufferance. 

The idea that a slave or submissive would negotiate how to spend joint income and seriously believe that they would be offering up more than an opinion, OR, that a slave or submissive would balk at having to do something they may not like to do and really believe that professing love of the Dominant would thus entitle them to a 'pass' on said chore .... these things smack of a tacit agreement with the societal norm.  This norm of course being that men are 'entitled' in our society and women are not.

I do not view my being 'entitled' as aberrant.  I see my giving instruction or direction as my right and I do so many times without really thinking about it.  Please do not mistake me, I'm not suggesting I'm a bossy sort but rather that if I want something done I tell the person doing it what I want, thank them for their time and move on - there isn't anything strange about it (well, in my eyes anyway - lol).   I find that my having to clarify being decisive and exacting strange, for if I were a Dominant man these same traits would be seen as obvious and highly desirable.

What I find the hardest thing to find in a slave is an adherence to my paradigm.  It is an attitude that pervades all aspects of someone's life, not just when it is 'allowed' because it is play time.  It is a core belief that I am in control because we both have agreed that I am.

I hope this made sense to you folks as it did seem a bit rambling to me but ... it's late at night and .... well, I'm off to bed - lol.

Wickad


*laffing*  You call that rambling?  I call it being concise and to the point.  Beautifully stated.
From now on I shall follow Wickad and simply say "Ditto!"



undergroundsea -> RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (4/21/2007 3:26:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wickad
From reading most of the posts (I admit to skipping most of the last page) I keep finding little phrases that don't really sit right with me.  I'm not going to get into who said what here but the general disconnect  seems to be between Dominant women wanting men who truly submit vs. men who allow said Dominant women to 'dominate' them at their sufferance. 


I don't think the word truly as it is used in the bdsm world is truly defined ;-)

If the phrases don't sit right with you as you define the parameters of your relationship, fair enough. If they don't sit right with you as you consider submission as a whole, then I disagree with you. Just as it is fair for you to define what the parameters of submission will be your relationship, it is fair for others to define what the parameters for submission will be for their relationships.

quote:

The idea that a slave or submissive would negotiate how to spend joint income and seriously believe that they would be offering up more than an opinion, OR, that a slave or submissive would balk at having to do something they may not like to do and really believe that professing love of the Dominant would thus entitle them to a 'pass' on said chore .... these things smack of a tacit agreement with the societal norm. 


Per the definition of the submissive which TigressFL gives, a submissive jointly defines the parameters of the relationship. I think it is fair for a submissive to negotiate how to spend joint income, and other aspects of the relationship. To say what the submissive says about matters important is only offering an opinion seems to me to marginalize the submissive as a person, which may be fine with some submissives and not with others.

I don't think this want to have a say in the relationship or whatever matters necessarily stems from agreeing to societal norms. In my opinion, you will also see similar ideas about defining the relationship in female subs about miscelleneous matters. When I examine my feelings about such matters, I am not thinking that I have this entitlement because I am a man, but that I have this entitlement because I am a person.

Taking a step back, I think what is happening here is that some of us are imagining what is being said with respect to a faceless, unfamiliar person to whom some compromise or surrender must be extended and who has not earned this compromise or surrender. That is, as a sub I initally responded as if I would be offering surrender to a role (a faceless domme whom I am yet to meet) versus a familiar person. Initially, I find myself protective of surrendering my comfort zones. However, as I imagine the matter with persons familiar, the need to protect lessens as I think of trust, familiarity, and desire for the person. Whatever surrender I give I will give because I am compelled to do so by how I feel about the person and not as much because of a sense that that is what a true submissive does.

I think a similar concept about being protective against an unfamiliar person or role applies from the dominant's side, and I see it in the example I referenced about a woman who said she is more likely to compromise in a relationship which carries promise for a companionship.

Cheers,

Sea



undergroundsea -> RE: Single Femdoms - what was lacking? (4/21/2007 3:30:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressDolly

"He likes to provide pleasure or be told what to do. "

replacing the or with and is even sweeter :) especially when she has a lot of good and wise things to say. lol :)


I concur entirely :)

Cheers,

Sea



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.445313E-02