Fake Doms & subs

[TantaLiza]

I don't claim to be a RL'er, just someone beginning to question her existence...I was taken for a bit of a ride. I think the person I got to know briefly was just into the spanking for sport. What I'm wanting to experience is the full effect from first to last... to get to know one another then take the relationship further. I think that's the way it's supposed to be so He can see what road needs to be traveled...

Please correct me if I'm wrong for I am still learning bits at a time... thank you for your patience!

Liza

 

[DVS]

Please correct me if I'm wrong for I am still learning bits at a time... thank you for your patience!

Liza

There is no need for correction. BDSM is what you make of it. All you need is another person (or two?) with the same mindset as yours.

Spanking as sport can be just fine, if you find another who thinks the same. Or, if the total 24/7 thing is what you disire, and so does your partner, more power to you.

BDSM is not an exact science, no matter what anyone tries to tell you. Explore on your own. The journey is part of the fun. Find someone you can trust and who trusts you, so you honestly can share what you like, together.

If that's just simple spanking for fun, fine. If it means you wish to exist as another's slave, that is fine, too. What you need to do is find someone who likes what you like, and go from there.

 

[~Dream~]

Re:Liza

I don't claim to be a RL'er, just someone beginning to question her existence...I was taken for a bit of a ride. I think the person I got to know briefly was just into the spanking for sport. What I'm wanting to experience is the full effect from first to last... to get to know one another then take the relationship further. I think that's the way it's supposed to be so He can see what road needs to be traveled...

Please correct me if I'm wrong for I am still learning bits at a time... thank you for your patience!

Liza

__________________
What's right for you IS what 's RIGHT for YOU ,peiod hun.. Thta's what I have found out .. there is NO book of rules ,you progress,you learn at Your own rate , not what OTHERS tell you.
If you are truly wanting to experience the full effect of it from first to last (I hear ya) me too!!You ahve it within Yourself to make it happen Liza and I for one, believe you will! Good luck on your journey.. "bits at a time ... btw are the BEST way to learn ..JMHO

 

[TantaLiza]

Thank you DVS and Dream....I need all the encouragement I can get...for now, only time will tell....Patience is the key...the journey is yet to begin....

Liza

 

[UCE]

Domination is a soft and subtle art of control, there is no need to bellow.

This statement is so vague that it can be intepreted in dozens of ways. So I'm going to quality it lest it be misunderstood.

Some dominants, real dominants, have naturally boisterous, very outgoing, LOUD LOUD LOUD and direct, non-manipulative personalities. (I mean they manipulate out in the open, not under cover: why should they hide? They're in control, after all) They take Mr. Guthries astute advice to heart, "If ya wanna change the world, ya gotta sing LOUD!" The difference in style between that sort of dominant from a quieter sort (I've known both, but the loud ones have been in the majority) has no bearing whatsoever on their dominance, just as one's position on the aggression-passivity scale has no bearing whatsoever upon one's actual submissiveness.

 

[UCE]

\Some dominants, real dominants, have naturally boisterous, very outgoing, LOUD LOUD LOUD and direct, non-manipulative personalities.

I forgot to say why I thinkit's important to mention this. A lot of poor fools in bdsm-land read _Story of O_ and think afterwards that all they need to do to be accepted as dominant and worshipped by submissives is to adopt a stern, aloof, "strong and silent" exterior (not hard for most men socialized in modern Western culture to do--they've already had plenty of training in non-communication) and submissives will be in awe of them. Some of the more pathetic ones even go so far as to imitate Sr. Stephen's way of dress (suits), his expensive tastes (fine wines, cigars, etc.), and the pseudo air of sophistication they imagine these confer. Some even more far gone individuals go so far as to name themselves after him. All of this imitative behavior no more magically transforms them into Wonder Dom! than getting a princess to kiss you transforms a frog into a prince. All it does is make for uncommunicative, blundering, foolish individuals who make the Scene a bit more confusing for newcomers and totally miserable for submissives, whose major needs for intimacy and reassurance of non-abandonment can never be met by such a fellow. Such a man can, if he's a moderate actor, cast a dashing romantic outer image, however, which a lot of naieve subs will fall hook, line, and sinker for.

The remarks that started this thread about subtlty sounded almost like a perpetuation of the commone Monkey-see-Sir Stephen/Monkey-do-Sir Stephen myth. Real dominants are subtle, there's no doubt about that, but they're so subtle that you'll never notice it under all that boisterousness (if they're an outgoing type). If they're the quiet type, what you'll probably notice most is their unassuming modesty, not some air of mystery or danger. Subtlty is not the same as pseudo-sophistication and putting on airs. Learning to tell the difference between those two is important to do if you are an inexperienced submissive if you don't want to wind up suckered and miserable with the Sir. Stephen dorks.

 

[UCE]

Re: painting the side of a barn

I hate WWF almost as much as I hate it when people paint with broad brush strokes....... But then I am an artist.

Wrestling??? His reference is entirely to the "sweet science," m'dear. And a very accurate parody it was. All that was lacking was Mills Lane, blowing his whistle loudly.

A fan


Not totally unrelated picture:

 

[UCE]

In fact, I submit that the only people who are likely to suffer any agonies of introspection because of comments like Rick's are the people whom he would be the least likely to accuse of being "fake." It's these people, I think, whose opinions I tend to value: people who question their perceptions of reality and their place in it.

What you are advocating is that people ignore the substance of a particular individual's message and base their acceptance or rejection on it entirely on style. Those who "appear" insecure (or wrap their gifts in a plain brown wrapper) are correct, by your logic, more than those who have a great deal of confidence in their ideas (razzle dazzle wrapping paper).

What this assumption ignores is that quite frequently lack of insecurity in one's message is an indication of valuable experience and knowlege that one has become totally comfortable with, not insincerity. Of course the bullshitters can also come off as confident-seeming as well. That's why it's extremely important, when reading someone's words on a subject you care a lot about or need to learn about, to attend carefully to the message, or what the person is _actually saying_, rather than the style of delivery (the wrapping around the "gift." This applies to anything written or spoken: books, lectures, chats, not just message boards. If you don't do this, and a bias toward a questioning or tentative approach is most definitely not doing this, you blind yourself with a bais different from those you are used to seeing in others, but equally large and capable of preventing clear vision.

You also risk the mistake (not sin) of pride: assuming your clever bias is a mote; while others' less sophisticated biases are beams. But a bias is a bias, and a sophisticated one is as likely to lead to a confused, screwed up life based on bad assumptions as the simpler ones.

It's simple folks--listen to the _words being said_ and think about what they mean. Try, if you can, to pay no attention to who is saying them and to how they are saying them. If you can do that, you will learn some astounding things.

This girl has got herself some _substance_, not _style_:

 

[UCE]

People without self-confidence are often the slowest to question themselves, and the quickest to resort to name-calling and violence, don't you think?

While apparently bullying behavior (name-calling and violence) is, the majority of time, an indication of the inner self-insecurity that all bullies share, once in a very blue moon such behavior is actually brilliantly calculated agit-prop. The person expressing these behaviors is not compensating for a lack; he's manipulating an entire group in order to realize personal goals. This kind of manipulation is merely a skill, so the goals can be good or bad ones. This sort of behavior is so rare, however, that we can pretty much assume we won't see it here. I just like to keep alive in peoples' minds the possibility that it could happen, because I've seen it done before.

A distinction needs to be made, as well, between non-self-questioning and bullying behavior. Sometimes the two go together, but sometimes they do not. I don't question myself every time I tie my shoes. I _know_ how to tie my shoes; I can do it with my eyes shut. Does that mean that I lack self-confidence? Knowledge is knowledge, be it of shoe-tying or of people or of sexuality. If you know a lot about the topic, pretending that you do not, clinging to false modesty, asking questions about things that you know the answers to is reprehensible dishonesty. Yes, yes, I know all about the online bias toward the people who appear tentative and questioning: these people are seen as modest and virtuous, primarily because they do not step on toes or offend anybody. But there is nothing wrong with the other sort of person: someone who has strong opinions which may very well be based upon years or decades of experience.

Once again, distrusting what somebody says because it sounds "overbearing" to you or because they wound your pride by clearing demonstrating vaster knowledge or deeper understanding is a big mistake on your part: you cut yourself off from learning when you block out someone because of their "style" rather than their substance. All I can say is that sometimes such people know what they're talking about and are invaluable resources; sometimes they the type of person you're describing above, someone compensating for a lack of self-confidence. There's a third alternative as well: very stupid people often appear extremely self-confident because their world is a simple, small place with obvious answers. They cannot think beyond their particular pond of knowledge--it's all that exists for them.

I have a lot of responses to the statement I quoted but I think the last thing that I will say is that when you are talking about sexuality and power, just as when you talk politics or religion, you inevitibly push peoples hot buttons. The great majority of times that an individual resorts to name-calling or verbal violence or even the more subtler nasty tones (of which there are hundreds) it's becuase something someone says, usually meant fairly innocently, has pushed a personal button. Perhaps the individual was promoting censorship, something many people are very strongly against as one of the worst evils. Perhaps they voiced a view that you thought was aimed directly at you, because it's something you think about a lot in regards to yourself--not that this person would know that. But anger, attacking with words, ill-temper, ad-hominim attacks, all that stuff can come from other sources than lack of self-confidence. People are emotional animals and respond emotionally and not always rationally to what they _think_ somebody else is saying, and while the results are usually not pretty, sometimes they do it from the very best of intentions.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I have whimsical tastes in pornography. I love to collect pictures of people doing obscene things with bananas, for instance:

 

[UCE]

On the Ages of Women

how this thread's discussion would fit in with Lance's theory of insecure twenty- and thirty-something women.

I have no idea of what this guy once said about insecure young women so don't get me wrong and think that I am supporting him. I can't do so, not knowing from your paraphrase what exactly was said.

But I do want to mention that, based on my personal experience and the experience of my female friends who are of a similar age, there is a near-literal revolution, an _explosion_ of self-confidence and self-liking that occurs for many women in their 40s. I say this _not_ to imply that younger women are insecure: just to let you know that the fourth decade is not, as one often thinks at a younger age, this horrible dreaded milestone in which you become really depressed becuase you're finally getting old.

For many of the women I know personally, it is the very best decade of their lives. If any of you reading this are younger, please realize that you have something very wonderful to look foward too. The nature of the self-confidence differs, too, from anything I had in my 20s and thirties. It's as if you finally come home within yourself.

I say this even though my 40s, so far, have been an extremely rough and difficult decade, rife with things that should have (and would have, at a younger time) made me intensely unhappy and insecure. But the amazing inner process still happened. I feel these days as if I can do hundreds of things more and better than I could when I was younger, because I have lost so many of my old inhibitions and hangups about the "right" ways to act that I used to entertain when I was younger.

It is very hard to hear this message when you are young as you intend to see it through the spectacles of youth. In other words, you'll take a statement like "I am now no longer hung up about acting in new and fufilling ways which I held back from when younger" and add to it an utterly false ending "...because I'm now an ugly old hag and nobody worth knowing gives a fuck about what I do or not." LOL! (shaking head in amusement) If you only knew! While a lot of women do stop obsessing about their looks so much in their 40s, it's not because they've ncessarily lost them (in today's age of health and fitness, many attractive women stay exquisitely beautiful well into their 50s and early 60s), but because you're more relaxed and self-loving. The "wrapping" is still nice, sure, but we care more about the contents of the "gift" that is ourselves and is for ourselves.

Such self-confidence, believe it or not, is immensely attractive to younger men, so if your "thing" is younger men (mine isn't--I've had to fight a very strong negative prejudice against young guys over the last few years, in fact, in order to develop some friendships with some very worthy people), do not worry about there being a lack of them in your 40s. They will flock to your side at that time, and the younger chicks, assuming automatically that it could never happen because men are only interested in youth and looks after all, will be none the wiser.

To end this pep-talk, look foward, young women! The best is yet to come.

An Italian Beauty (I have no idea of her age; I just like her looks):

 

[~Dream~]

very nice post UCE

and I couldnt agree more.

I am 45 years old and find that I am definately just reaching my peak sexually,I feel LESS inhibited than I did when I was younger,I feel freer to express myself,my desires ,my wants..

I attribute a lot of this to my acceptance of my sexually submissive nature,Looking inside and seeing myself as my Master sees me has helped my self-esteem tremendously..my self confidence feels 'energized' for the first time in so very long.

of course I do attribute alot of this to "being in love also as it does tend to bring 'euphoric' feelings in to play..

All I can say is I feel good about me,Dream ,I think I am a good person ,and Master makes me feel like the most beautiful woman alive,who could really ask for more than that??

 

[TheCurious]

I can't blame him for not coming around alot, I just go here and I'm already tiring of the large massive amounts of BS and such.

I'm going to jump on the bitch wagon though, because I too hate people who are so fake and pretentious.

One of my biggest peeves is supposed Dominants who can't handle intelligent/fiesty submissives. A good submissive isn't a punching bag or a "yes man", and if you're threatened by a submissive who questions you.... you're a pathetic dom.

I personally don't even call myself "dominant" or "Dom", I am just who I am. A man in control. Referancing the earlier comment I mad about questions... questions posed to me by those who have been submissive to me... have most times been the most thought provoking and growth inducing questions I have been asked.

Another thing that bothers me... alot of people here come across as -so- desperate. As if the only sexual contact or stimulation they have with anyone is by typing uninteresting sexually bland messages on the internet. Its sad.