PeonForHer
Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Perhaps. But your view - this box you've been so desperate to put me in and presuade others to recognise - explains your belief about my supposed promiscuity.
Ok, Peon. Sorry, but I think I've had enough bullshit for one thread.
Yes - me likewise.
quote:
I have tried, in a more gentle tone, to let you know that you are projecting a very excessive amount of passion onto me. "You're angry with me" (and everyone), "You're attacking me" (and everyone), "You're desperate to put me into a box" (and everyone, I suppose?) are bad enough. But "I'm not the right sub for you", "I could never surrender to you", "You're unbalanced in your dominance" etc. are all remarks that are just downright spooikily inappropriate when directed at me.
I have never, on any occasion, given you the slightest reason to think I was interested in you as a submissive partner. I have never told you I was assessing you as a man or listed reasons why I would accept or reject you, etc..
When you first logged on to these forums, I did once try to extend some friendly advice about your personal safety, it is very true. This was because my alarm bells were set off when your tone was so flippant about the possible physical and emotional dangers in bdsm. I was concerned that you might walk into a bad situation without a safety net because you didn't seem to think any woman was capable of harming you.
Expressing this concern was not a come-on or a flirtation of any kind. I just didn't want anyone to get hurt.
Shakti, it was kind of you to warn me about the dangers of being too cocksure when in a submissive position with a dominant. I thank you for that - not least because I have had cause to be careful on a few occasions since. But what I find spookily weird is your belief that I meant anything more than the hypothetical in the statements I've made that you've read regarding your 'coming on to me', or vice versa.
Good god. It's more likely that we both wake up tomorrow morning to have discovered that we've swapped bodies than for one of us to make a play for the other.
quote:
As for the rest? I don't think my opinion of you is shared by anyone else here, nor would I expect it to be. We are surrounded by female dominants, not sheep. I could talk myself blue in the face and each and every one of these women would make up her own mind about you without my help. As they have done.
Agreed.
quote:
I am sorry if I do not play any of your ego affirmation games on these forums or behind the scenes. If sexual flirtation is the only way you have of expressing fondness for a person, I am sure that my attitude must be very strange and off-putting. But I'm afraid that my failure to play this game does not make me an angry person, an unstable person, etc., however, nor does it mean that I enough care what others think of you to launch some sort of campaign.
Oh dear. I hardly know where to start. On this board all I do is be friendly, and joke, in my own style. What I say is never meant to be an overt flirt. Nor is it designed to upset or anger the person to whom I'm posting - as you once accused me. As for 'flirtation being the only way I can express fondness' - I think you know, and my friends know, that this simply isn't true.
quote:
It also doesn't mean that I have no sense of humor and no fondness for other people. I just have other ways of showing fondness for people than offers of naked pictures of myself, porn-tastic descriptions of my fetishistic adventures, etc..
That's true. I've seen you express fondness for people at times. In fact, I have the dates written down somewhere. 
quote:
 OK, I stand corrected. I got the wrong end of the stick - thinking that the word 'hon', given the context of your aggressive post, and given that you've never used it with me on those rare occasions when you've not been attacking me, was an attempt to belittle. Just as your use of such terms when attacking others isn't, either.
quote:
Your assumption that my posts have been "aggressive" shows me that you really have no idea what the word means. I have been responding to your sally in this thread, not vice versa--you jumped in to contradict me, I responded with the  face because my reaction when being snippily contradicted by you these days is "Gee--what a surprise."
Oh come on. For a period of months after you referred to me as a 'promiscuous little attention-whore', neither of us spoke to the other. If either of us even alluded to a comment of the other in a critical way, it was in guarded terms. And sometimes there was approval, too. You broke that tacit agreement in a neutral (and quite amusing) way - and then I thought things had thawed out. And then, a couple of days ago, you outright approved of my view on Robert Heinlein's concept of female superiority, despite his being agreeable enough for you to quote him as your tag line and my being critical of him. By that time I thought the thawing between us was complete.
I say 'I thought' - past tense. Re my believing you to be aggressive, whereas you believe yourself to be not so: do you not consider that you yourself might see aggression where none exists? What started all this series of lengthy posts was the exchange, above:
Yourself: "I think a dominant is entitled to ask for and receive what she desires from her submissive. Control over the body means control over the body: within the limits of sanity and safety, a dominant should be able to exert just about any sort of control she desires. "
My reply; "Hmm. I think the limits to that [dominant's control over a man's body] should be negotiated. I could safely and healthily be fatter - but I don't want to be. Nope, not with you on this one, Shakti. "
This wasn't meant as aggression on my part, nor even my being 'snippy'. This was just a quick qualifier, done in what was meant to be a light-hearted tone. Your response was clearly written as though you felt personally attacked. Hence, your comment in that response that 'you never took me seriously'. My point to you was ignored; as far as you were concerned, this was about 'you and I'.
quote:
Telling you that I was not searching for another submissive could not possibly be construed as "aggressive" on my part, either; my happiness with Aidan is just a statement of fact, and quite a positive one at that. It was stated with the word "hon" attached once again to lighen any possible harshness; I had no desire to hurt your feelings by pointing out my relationship status. And if you read my posts with a little less agenda to see the worst, you would find that my speech pattern is as consistent as my other values.
I'm sorry, but this is so far down the wrong track that, again, I don't know where to start. I'm sure your happiness with Aidan is complete - I've seen that. Your relationship status had nothing to do with my feeling about your use of the word 'hon'. As I said before, what jars is your use of a belittling address in the context of a criticising post.
quote:
ORIGINAL It was aimed at you and any other dominant (or indeed sub) who apparently aspires to make the rules that they think should apply everywhere.
Again, I stand corrected. I misread your line "I think a dominant is entitled to ask for and receive what she desires from her submissive. Control over the body means control over the body: within the limits of sanity and safety, a dominant should be able to exert just about any sort of control she desires." (my emphasis)
I have no difficulty standing by the statement in bold. Exerting the control you desire IS dominance.
I will also stand by the other statement I made, which is that a submissive's challenge is to find the right dominant, not to dominate the relationship.
And I stand by my own belief: that a submissive and a dominant will have to negotiate the boundaries of their relationship. 'Negotiating' by the sub is not the same as his 'dominating' the relationship. I understand that some dominants don't believe that such negotiation should take place. This is fine for them, just as my view is fine for me and for the dominants that I know to exist in large enough numbers to suit me.
quote:
As for the accusation about projecting my own relationship wants or needs on others--you had zero reason to assume that I would ever make any statement to that effect. There is no evidence in what I said that the control that one woman desires will be the control that all women desire. My public statements on the "My Way Is the Only Way" philosophy have been 100%, without fail, to the contrary. On every occasion.
Then I stand corrected. But if so, will you accept that a given criticism of one of your views on D/s does not constitute an attack on your authority - because, as you've said, you don't set yourself up as the authority on D/s?
quote:
"Oh, I could never allow a woman to have any control over how I speak. She'd make me talk slash-speak to my boss and my Mum!"
This is one of your 'you seem to' comments again. No evidence, just your feeling. What are you talking about? Why would I be seeking a dominant if I believe that she might harm or ruin my life?
The reference above was to an actual statement you made about submitting to control. It's a paraphrase, to be sure, but this was essentially your argument, and to be honest it's the sum of many of your arguments against submission to female authority: you conjure up a worst-case scenario in which a woman exercises control only to your detriment. You could never submit to control of your speech, you could never submit to control of your body--why? Because if a woman controlled your speech, she would control it stupidly. If a woman controlled your body, she'd make you fat.
Ah. Thank you for substantiating this time. Yes, I do present the down-sides to certain sorts of control, don't I? Re control of my speech or my body - well, such things would, for me, come back to that 'negotiation of boundaries' that I mentioned earlier. To allow a woman complete control of my body, in all ways - and likewise with my speech - I'd have to see her not only as acting in my best interests, but a clear authority on what's best in bodies and speech, generally. Again, fortunately for you and I, there are different sorts of dominants and different sorts of submissives.
quote:
My "feeling" once again is this: you demonize female authority. Perhaps because you believe that no woman knows better than you do who you shoul be, how you should behave, what you should look like, etc.. Perhaps there is no woman's desire that is more important to you than your ego, where control is concerned.
All I can really say is 'no, I don't demonise female authority'. I recognise it when I see it. In many, though not all, ways, women have known better than me how to behave, what I should look like - and so forth. In fact, I've even relied on it completely in quite a lot of areas and throughout my life. As for my ego: that bears little relationship to anything D/s. It wouldn't be compromised by my submitting.
quote:
On the sole basis of the fact that you can't bring yourself to apologise I couldn't trust you as a dominant.
quote:
Lol...I was already responding to this post by the time I got to this line, so it's rather funny that I've already typed the words "I apologize" once. I suppose that this, like all your other bizarre statements about my character and posts, is just part of the agenda to demonize me. That's fine, I've been on the receiving end of this sort of thing before. Funny how often it's the men who feel the need to press this agenda.
For the record, the fact of the matter is this: people often demand apologies from me. They want me to apologize as a form of recantation, unilaterally, so that things can return to a previous status quo and everyone can agree that the social rupture was entirely my fault, and there was no fault on their own end.
Such people do not receive apologies from me because, quite frankly, I do not agree that I was in the wrong and solely to blame for the social rupture. The recent foo-forah about ageism is a perfect case in point. Many people demanded that I apologize for arguing passionately that discrimination due to age was just another form of bigotry. I upset them and they felt attacked. Examining their own attitudes and statements to understand that these were the instigating cause was not something they were willing to do. They wanted an apology so that they could continue to believe they were blameless and inoffensive, not as part of any approach to mutual understanding.
No one was willing for a moment to take back or apologize for the sweeping statements they had made which applied to my submissive and everyone in his age group. The most that they would allow was that Aidan and a few other good eggs were the "special niggers", better than the rest. They stood by the "general truth" of their statements.
It's impossible for me to apologize under those conditions. I am more than capable of apologizing for upsetting people, when I have a reason to feel that I have mistreated them. But I have no reason to apologize unilaterally to someone just because they want to assert social dominance
As for you? I can apologize for saying something that obviously resonated and smarted much more than it should have. Clearly I oversated the case and I apologize for making you the victim of hyperbole..
I can't speak on that matter of ageism - I wasn't involved in it. I didn't feel that you should apologise to me in order to reassert my social dominance. In fact, I'm not even sure I know what that means.
quote:
However, you make the apology quite difficult when you insist that it was a "baseless slur". From my point of view, you were turning this forum into an absolute pile of crap, with pages and pages of spam which was appropos of nothing but your sexual ego. You had ignored my more-polite requests, in public AND in private, to please tone it down to a dull roar and not to derail one thread after another for pages at a time. At the same time, you were regaling this forum with tales of deeply horrible personal melodrama that you had caused or been involved with on other forums, where people had gotten badly hurt and suffered serious harm--all while stating simultaneously that somehow these other forums were superior to this one because "everyone was so friendly".
Perhaps my remark was over-the-top, but so was your behavior and attiude from my point of view. Since you didn't slow down a whit until the Mod slapped you down with brute force, and since there have been no apologies from your end, it would seem to me that your habits and mine are very much the same: we let the Mod determine whether our posts are excessive, and do not let other people exert pressure or tell us how to feel, how to post, and when to apologize..
I thought we'd done and dusted all this. The story I told that was 'so horrible' was probably worse for me to write than it was for others to read. I wrote it because I felt I needed to, regarding security and the need to be careful about what information one casts about. It bears no relationship with that old issue of my, and others, derailing threads. I did apologise for my part in that and whatever a pain it might have caused for some people - and I did change the way I posted, afterwards.
quote:
If you haven't ever met a woman who was as confident and sure she was in the right as you are before? This must be quite the revelation. Welcome to the world of Femdom, my petal. Have a lovely stay. .
I don't know why, but that 'my petal' just made me chuckle. Maybe your sense of humour is better than I thought.
I don't know about my being confident - I've asked a plethora of questions since I've been here of people who I think know more than me on many different subjects. However, I'm confident of one thing: this is that you should apologise for calling me 'promiscuous' because I'm not, in fact, promiscuous, and it was a rude thing to say, and without evidence. You did that, in albeit in a very qualified way, so thank you.
_____________________________
http://www.domme-chronicles.com
|
RE: Weight Control - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread