Could you respect a lazy Dom/me?

[Andraste]

...define "lazy"?

 

[Daddyslilpet]

From Dictionary.com

la·zy
– adjective
1. averse or disinclined to work, activity, or exertion; indolent.
2. causing idleness or indolence: a hot, lazy afternoon.
3. slow-moving; sluggish: a lazy stream.
4. (of a livestock brand) placed on its side instead of upright.
–verb (used without object)
5. to laze.

 

[Andraste]

From Dictionary.com

la·zy
– adjective
1. averse or disinclined to work, activity, or exertion; indolent.
2. causing idleness or indolence: a hot, lazy afternoon.
3. slow-moving; sluggish: a lazy stream.
4. (of a livestock brand) placed on its side instead of upright.
–verb (used without object)
5. to laze.

yes, but in what sense?

lazy in housework? work? bedroom? scenes? everything?

 

[JMohegan]

I don't know anyone, of any gender or sexual orientation, who actively exerts him/herself in all areas of life. All people make choices based on their individual needs and proclivities, and exert themselves accordingly.

Could a sub respect a lazy Dom/me?

Could a Dom/me respect a lazy sub?

It seems to me that the real question here for any two people is whether or not they are well matched in terms of areas of laziness.

Of course, the more effort one puts in to one's life overall (i.e., the fewer areas of laziness), the more attractive one will be to potential mates - and the more capable one will be of sustaining relationships.

This is just a question of how much one brings to the table, and it holds true for any person seeking a relationship of any flavor.

A Dom/me who is lazy in multiple areas such as personal grooming and exercise, career, SM skills such as skill with a flogger, and general knowledge requisite for interesting conversation, will have fewer choices when seeking a partner than one who has exerted him/herself in those spheres. The same thing could be said on the other side of the coin.

Once in a relationship, it seems to me that the general rule of give & take will apply. The participants exert effort in different spheres, perhaps. But if one is exerting significantly more effort than the other, the quality of the relationship itself will begin to deteriorate.

Putting all of this another way and on a more personal note, I'd say that any woman whom I would respect as a mate would be a woman who expects the quid pro quo to apply in a personal relationship.

 

[Daddyslilpet]

yes, but in what sense?

lazy in housework? work? bedroom? scenes? everything?

To me personally for one to be truly lazy they would have to be so in all aspects of their life. So therefore lazy in everything, and no that is not something I could respect honestly. However this is just MY opinion.

I actually agree with what JM posted above whole heartedly and think he hit the nail on the head.

 

[Andraste]

I actually agree with what JM posted above whole heartedly and think he hit the nail on the head.

what did he say?

my attention span died three lines in.

 

[coy_one]

JM hit the nail on the head for me. I cannot be with someone that exerts LESS energy than I do. I have my moments, but overall, I'm pretty high energy, motivated and just cannot be with someone that I feel is lesser in those areas.

 

[Daddyslilpet]

what did he say?

my attention span died three lines in.

too bad you missed a good post.

 

[Andraste]

too bad you missed a good post.

that happens lots.

bright colours & shiny things distract me..

 

[Phirefly]

Hehe, I'm easily distracted as well, but not necessarily lazy, I think.

There are so many ways to define laziness, of course. When I think of someone who is lazy it doesn't just mean not doing the dishes more than once a month because it's too much work, it also means not taking steps forward in life. Like "Hey, I really hate my job, but I'm really too lazy to put some work into finding a new job, so I'm just going to stay here and gripe instead"

If I find an SO who is lazy in housework, meh, I can deal with that. I'd probably enjoy doing the work for him, actually. I commonly find myself cleaning random friends' kitchens these days, so housework I can deal with, and actually enjoy, especially if it's something that He has asked me to do and will gain pleasure from me completing the task.

But being too lazy to take steps forward in one's life is not acceptable for me, personally. There's a difference, in my head, between helping/supporting and enabling. Maybe a fine line, but one nonetheless.

It probably annoys some people a little that I either am vague in my questions or generalize too greatly, but I truly like to see how people define the questions I ask for themselves. So I'm sorry if that's obnoxious to some of you dear readers!

 

[Sylvia2]

Laziness isn't a "quality" at all Sylvia. At worst it is a character flaw. At best a temporary state from which we all suffer from time to time.

Apologies to Blushing, and others, including those who found my comment 'offensive'. Just to make it clear that no harm was intended I would like to provide my quote with certain key words in bold...

'Laziness just seems like an inherently submissive quality to me, and therefore does not sit well in someone claiming to be dom.'

This is from a personal point of view, I couldn't be a lazy dom. If you can work the 'lazy dom' thing then good for you.

I'd also like to add that I don't think laziness is a character flaw. That's just a mad value judgement.

x

 

[FurryFury]

I think laziness like most things has it's up side as well as it's downside. A lot of qualities we tend to think of as "bad" are actually good in some ways and have contributed, positively at times, to our lives. Of course any quality when over done can have bad results as well.

Fury

 

[SilkVelvet]

My ex Master was very driven and Alpha when it came to his job, but was otherwise quite laid back. Not to the point of laziness though.

I have to say that I couldn't respect a lazy Dom who didn't make any kind of effort somewhere in his life. I'd be thinking him a wannabe rather than the real McCoy lol

 

[sister76]

Totally lazy - I'd say no to that. I would need to have respect for the person in some way.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Following this thread I have noticed most are seeing it from a very mainstream capitalist western viewpoint. Most want someone who is ambitious in their work if nothing else, who works hard etc., who is a 'go get it' sort of person. For me I am happy with someone who is content to 'work to live' as opposed to 'live to work'. I also take into account with people like F, there is not a need to appear to be working their butts off as they get done in one morning what most need a week or more to even get close to doing if they are even able. What also of the person who holds the philosophy that a person's value is not measured by their bank account, possessions, ambition or status, or measures those things differently? Does someone who may have a more relaxed and perhaps spiritual path as opposed to high pace and aggressive one necessarily not have the stuff to be a Dominant? For me they would more likely seem to have more qualities I admire in a Dominant because it also follows my own philosophy, but I am curious if everyone really equates Dominance with activity? I guess I tend to think a Dominant also requires or takes advantage of the fact a submissive is there to serve, and thus lessen the activity level for them more so than the other way around.

Catalina

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

Point of clarification in regards to my own post exclusively. When using the term 'lazy' I regard a stance of complexity . A paradox in itself.

The term covering a broad spectrum of areas from focus/mental diligence through to the more mundane yet important functions of personal self maintenance , hygiene and a myriad of potential factors more.

There are counter balances within the term to me. Deliberate recreation does not fall within the context of lazy within a holistic criteria.

There is a huge divide between holistic laziness and deliberately employed recreation time .

 

[catalina_francisco]

Point of clarification in regards to my own post exclusively. When using the term 'lazy' I regard a stance of complexity . A paradox in itself...... smiles.

The term covering a broad spectrum of areas from focus/mental diligence through to the more mundane yet important functions of personal self maintenance , hygiene and a myriad of potential factors more.

There are counter balances within the term to me. Deliberate recreation does not fall within the context of lazy within a holistic criteria.

There is a huge divide between holistic laziness and deliberately employed recreation time .

LOL, at least you don't expect them to be superhuman or Eveready Bunnies!!

Catalina

 

[FurryFury]

I don't either.

I can be very happy with human and somewhat lazy aka able to enjoy life.

My husband does tend to be an ever ready bunny type lately. I don't have the time or energy for that. I've been using my kegal method to counteract the marathons.

How many kegal's does it take . . .

to make him come?

After that it's just a twitch until he is nearly insensible or asleep.



Fury

 

[SilkVelvet]

Following this thread I have noticed most are seeing it from a very mainstream capitalist western viewpoint. Most want someone who is ambitious in their work if nothing else, who works hard etc., who is a 'go get it' sort of person. For me I am happy with someone who is content to 'work to live' as opposed to 'live to work'. I also take into account with people like F, there is not a need to appear to be working their butts off as they get done in one morning what most need a week or more to even get close to doing if they are even able. What also of the person who holds the philosophy that a person's value is not measured by their bank account, possessions, ambition or status, or measures those things differently? Does someone who may have a more relaxed and perhaps spiritual path as opposed to high pace and aggressive one necessarily not have the stuff to be a Dominant? For me they would more likely seem to have more qualities I admire in a Dominant because it also follows my own philosophy, but I am curious if everyone really equates Dominance with activity? I guess I tend to think a Dominant also requires or takes advantage of the fact a submissive is there to serve, and thus lessen the activity level for them more so than the other way around.

Catalina

Hi Catalina,

I think Dominance is innate. It does seem to me, that there are quite a lot of intelligent alpha males in the City in London (lawyers, bankers, accountants) who are into BDSM. £££ doesn't impress me, but the intelligence and ambition do...oh and the cufflinks

 

[FurryFury]

Ambition is very much a double edged sword. In the society I was raised it, I'm supposed to want an ambitious man.

He turned out to be a toxic mean shit head.

I'd rather find a man who will actually respect me, spend time with me and who knows how to enjoy life.

Fury

 

[SilkVelvet]

Ambition is very much a double edged sword. In the society I was raised it, I'm supposed to want an ambitious man.

He turned out to be a toxic mean shit head.

I'd rather find a man who will actually respect me, spend time with me and who knows how to enjoy life.

Fury

I think I should have clarified my thoughts more.. ambition turns me on.. but a man who has no time for me, or who is darned arrogant is a turn-OFF. I don't need his respect so much as I want him to respect what I am doing for him and value my submission.

I have come across guys who ticked my mental wants list but just didn't have the time Also came across quite a lot of wannabes with Swarovski crystal-handled whips from www.agentprovocateur.com at GBP 95