Loss of respect?

Shankara20 said:
Are you using the word "asshole" here as a pejorative?
There are times I use that word as a term of endearment.

But then I like my asshole.
*sounds of me ducking under my desk*


Rhetorical Question.

Like opinions , we all have them .
 
ownedsubgal said:
well i'm one of those semi old-fashioned types who does view a man who has a desire for, or enjoys actual firm anal pentration (finger, toy, strap-on) as having at the very least homoerotic tendencies. add to that i'd view it as a submissive characteristic, so i could not respect such a man and certainly could not be in a relationship with such a man.

i'm with Marquis in that chances are a man who wants to take a dildo up the bum is also going to have other undomly (which for some, like me, equates to unmanly) characteristics as well.

And there yah go.... Thats pretty much it in a nutshell...
The whole thing comes down to the psychology of the two ladies in the original posting...
What happened in bed didn't change the men they were playing with..But it changed the way they looked at those men.
Hmmmm ... I might propose the idea.. That it wasn't the anal play so much, as the form of it.

*LOL*
Of course...DOes any one want to stick their tongue into the mousetrap???
Anyone care to define "manly". Or even "Domly".
 
Life_Noir said:
*LOL*
Anyone care to define "manly". Or even "Domly".
...or bump any one of the 3,235,487,135 threads already existing attempting to do just that?

Actually there have been some very good discussions in the past and it might be time for another. As new folks join in it can be helpful for all of us to revisit the problems we encounter as we try to define here terms. I am not well rested enough just now to try it myself.
 
Life_Noir said:
And there yah go.... Thats pretty much it in a nutshell...
The whole thing comes down to the psychology of the two ladies in the original posting...
What happened in bed didn't change the men they were playing with..But it changed the way they looked at those men.
Hmmmm ... I might propose the idea.. That it wasn't the anal play so much, as the form of it.

*LOL*
Of course...1.) DOes any one want to stick their tongue into the mousetrap???

2.) Anyone care to define "manly". Or even "Domly".

1. Wow! Now that's a kinky thing I've never even considered.

LOL.

2. I'm not that concerned with the term "manly." *shrugs* I guess my main concern with a man is that he can communicate well with me and be trusted.

What makes a person the sort of "Dom" that I would want is probably different than a lot of other people. All these terms are relative, I guess.

Once, I thought there would be a sort of magical "Domly" aura that I could bask in. Oh how I wanted to do at least that much. *sigh* Ah dreams and fantasies.

Nope, so far they are just people like the rest of us, and from what I can tell from the one's I've met, they are mostly wonderful people too!

Fury :rose:
 
Kailey_86 said:
i wouldn't connect the two either. i actually think that a guy deserves more respect if he is able to do things that are more feminine. It shows me that they are confident and comfortable with their masculinity. They don't need to prove that they are a man. If something feels good, why not do it?

If a man wants to just sit there and let his sub lick away at his ass or give him a blowjob, i don't think that makes him less manly or Domly either. If that is what he wants, that is what he gets. He doesn't have to physically take control of his sub to dominate her.

i agree completely, i was going to post on this thread until i read your post, and i agree with everything you said and i couldn't say it better..so i'll let your's stand for both of us...yea...what she said ;)
 
ownedsubgal said:
good question Etoile. i guess that would depend on the particular woman and circumstance. but i suppose you're asking if i would think of her as less womanly/feminine? if she was very efficient at her high-powered job, and for the most part even enjoyed it, then i would not describe that woman as submissive, regardless of how she behaved outside of the workplace. however a woman needn't be submissive to fit my idea of feminine (although that certainly helps). now if she was aggressive in the workplace, ruled with an iron fist so to speak, intimidated her employees, etc., then that is someone i would describe as unfeminine, even if outside of work she behaved submissively.

so you'e saying any submissive who holds a high ranking job, cannot be a submissive?? i tend to disagree with this. in my job, i held a position of power so to speak and i can assure you, i AM submissive outside of work. i have 3 kids that i am in control of on a daily basis, so because i control them, does that make me not a submissive in your eyes as well??
 
actually rose if you reread that isn't what i said at all. it's not about the job a person has, but more so about how they function and thrive in that particular job. there are many submissives who build up an outer shell of strength and assertiveness just to get by in the world without being trampled...but, this is not their comfort zone. if one's comfort zone is being in a position of control and power, if emotionally and mentally they thrive in such a position, then imo that person is not "a" submissive. tho they indeed may be submissive outside the workplace, to a particular person, in a particular situation.
 
ownedsubgal said:
actually rose if you reread that isn't what i said at all. it's not about the job a person has, but more so about how they function and thrive in that particular job. there are many submissives who build up an outer shell of strength and assertiveness just to get by in the world without being trampled...but, this is not their comfort zone. if one's comfort zone is being in a position of control and power, if emotionally and mentally they thrive in such a position, then imo that person is not "a" submissive. tho they indeed may be submissive outside the workplace, to a particular person, in a particular situation.

hmmm..interesting...so because i thrived at my job, i did well at it, and i enjoyed it, that makes me not submissive?? i am naturally submissive i don't have to 'put up a front' for the world so that i don't get trampled on, though i do very often get trampled on by many. but i don't think i agree that simply because i had a position of power and i did well in that position at work and enjoyed it, that i'm not submissive. i still don't think i understand your way of thinking osg....it's almost as though you are saying because you don't work, that you are more submissive than one who does work and enjoy that job especially if it's a position of 'power'. this makes no sense to me as i don't understand being 'more submissive' than someone else

and if they are indeed submissive to someone outside the workplace, to someone, that doesnt' make them submissive? what submissives are to be submissive to EVERYONE?? is that your way of thinking osg?? i'm confused...
 
Last edited:
Why is the idea that you might not be THAT submissive so offensive?
 
Marquis said:
Why is the idea that you might not be THAT submissive so offensive?

it's not offensive. i know how submissive i am as does my Master and that's what matters, but i'm trying to understand her way of thinking, to better understand her views and ideas..it has nothing to do with being offended.....
 
rose, it's not about working or not working. i truly don't think you're going to understand my p.o.v. on this, as i'm sure you don't understand my p.o.v. on many things. first you have to remember that there is a difference between being submissive, and being "a" submissive. second you have to know that my own (and obviously my Master's) personal view of "a" submissive refers to having a submissive personality and nature, which has nothing to do with a person's desires, needs, turn-ons, etc., it just is. third i'm not saying that either is any better or worse than the other, just that they are very different.
 
please excuse 'slight' deviation from thread topic

Marquis said:
Why is the idea that you might not be THAT submissive so offensive?
I'll go out on a limb here Marquis and say that in some situations I would be offended. I wasn't yesterday when the 'Masta' referred to me as a "switch that needs taming" or more to the point that he couldn't be bothered with "as stated". No shackles raised at all.

I am also clear within myself that no one has the power to make that statement "you might not be THAT submissive" relative and or offensive unless I hand it to them in a moment of weakness.

My reasoning. As amazing an expression of submission can be when reconciled with an appropriate dominant partner, or even at times alone but at peace with yourself it can also be a total pain in the neck. It's like a battle with ensuring completely natural drives are embraced versus the majority where BDSM and D/s just makes good scripts for raunchy TV viewing.

Lets face it even well balanced , competent , even loving dominants will use a variation implied if it serves their purpose. That's where the sting comes from for me.

As an extra note though not related to your post Marquis , the premise that a woman can hold her own in a Corporate situation and that somehow the fact negates by degree her personal submissive status is ridiculous. Perhaps if she took a pay cut to her male counterparts. Hmmmn wonder if that would make her more 'submissive'. Then again it might just make her stupid . Never equated submission overtly with stupidity.

Anyway, everyone knows that smart corporate stylun submissives never wear panties under their Prada suits. Unless of course their dominant partners have instructed them to :chuckles:
 
Last edited:
lil_slave_rose said:
hmmm..interesting...so because i thrived at my job, i did well at it, and i enjoyed it, that makes me not submissive?? i am naturally submissive i don't have to 'put up a front' for the world so that i don't get trampled on, though i do very often get trampled on by many. but i don't think i agree that simply because i had a position of power and i did well in that position at work and enjoyed it, that i'm not submissive. i still don't think i understand your way of thinking osg....it's almost as though you are saying because you don't work, that you are more submissive than one who does work and enjoy that job especially if it's a position of 'power'. this makes no sense to me as i don't understand being 'more submissive' than someone else

and if they are indeed submissive to someone outside the workplace, to someone, that doesnt' make them submissive? what submissives are to be submissive to EVERYONE?? is that your way of thinking osg?? i'm confused...


*LOL*... And rightly so..{the confusion that is}...
Hmm I'm about to probably get yelled at here... But one of those odd problems that we run into... Is that there is a tendancy, to mistake RL, for "Real Life"...
*grin*
Lots of folks in BDSM {and many other things}.. Lead a rather odd comic book life.. The person that is mild mannered {or not so mild mannered} during the day..May turn out to be Studs Manly SuperDom, or sub, or whatever, when not in public.
I remember at least one hard as nails executive type...I remember him because last I saw him he was having a wooden spoon broken across his ass.
*shrug*
What you are at work has almost nothing to do with what you are like the rest of the time.. Which is probably good for commercial enterprise.
 
Life_Noir said:
*LOL*
Of course...DOes any one want to stick their tongue into the mousetrap???
Anyone care to define "manly". Or even "Domly".


LOL, yep, IMHO defining 'manly' and 'Domly' can both be summarised as a male (or in the case of Dommely, a female) who is not afraid to be who they are and are not influenced by the views and definitions of others to the point of excluding things from their life that they personally enjoy or like simply because it is thought to not be acceptable for them to do and be thought of as Dominant and/or masculine. For me, someone who allows another's viewpoint (especially someone they don't or barely know) to define their behaviour over their own preferences is weak and in need of a serious reality check before they waste a life in frustrated unhappiness.

Catalina :catroar:
 
From the people I've met and the ones who post on this board, it seems to me the majority of people are sexually the opposite of what their job would indicate they "might" be. Very rarely is someone Dominant at both work and sexually or vice versa. I personally can't imagine how exhausting and unbalancing that would be for me.

Fury :rose:
 
Life_Noir said:
*LOL*... And rightly so..{the confusion that is}...
Hmm I'm about to probably get yelled at here... But one of those odd problems that we run into... Is that there is a tendancy, to mistake RL, for "Real Life"...
*grin*
Lots of folks in BDSM {and many other things}.. Lead a rather odd comic book life.. The person that is mild mannered {or not so mild mannered} during the day..May turn out to be Studs Manly SuperDom, or sub, or whatever, when not in public.
I remember at least one hard as nails executive type...I remember him because last I saw him he was having a wooden spoon broken across his ass.
*shrug*
What you are at work has almost nothing to do with what you are like the rest of the time.. Which is probably good for commercial enterprise.
I -genuinely- wonder what the stats are on that premise. To me it has always seemed to be a bit of a BDSM urban legend . I have no doubt that there would be people for whom those circumstances may prevail , though considering, the potential threatening complexities/risks to position I feel more comfortable extending the premise to parody. I'll admit I have never understood the need for 'release' from executive status . Most I have known thrive on the challenge and find their profession personally empowering if not 'just right' as they have natural tenacity for the pursuit.
 
FurryFury said:
From the people I've met and the ones who post on this board, it seems to me the majority of people are sexually the opposite of what their job would indicate they "might" be. Very rarely is someone Dominant at both work and sexually or vice versa. I personally can't imagine how exhausting and unbalancing that would be for me.

Fury :rose:


:p Not me... I don't have to be either PC...or particularly socially acceptable.. I rather like that :devil:
 
@}-}rebecca---- said:
I -genuinely- wonder what the stats are on that premise. To me it has always seemed to be a bit of a BDSM urban legend . I have no doubt that there would be people for whom those circumstances may prevail , though considering, the potential threatening complexities/risks to position I feel more comfortable extending the premise to parody. I'll admit I have never understood the need for 'release' from executive status . Most I have known thrive on the challenge and find their profession personally empowering if not 'just right' as they have natural tenacity for the pursuit.

I wonder about the stats too.

It's absolutely true for me and for quite a few people I know in RL and also quite a few who have posted here but I didn't say it was true for everyone cause I know better.

Fury :rose:
 
FurryFury said:
I wonder about the stats too.

It's absolutely true for me and for quite a few people I know in RL and also quite a few who have posted here but I didn't say it was true for everyone cause I know better.

Fury :rose:
In my experience, it's accurate but it plays out in weird ways. Not every sub I've played with is a stereotypical exec, but you can bet that the vast majority have very stressful and demanding jobs. A lot of the Dominants I've met also have stressful and demanding jobs, but are often beholden to someone else's stupidity when final say comes down and feel locked in by that - whether that means you're a waiter or a lawyer doesn't really matter.
 
FurryFury said:
I wonder about the stats too.

It's absolutely true for me and for quite a few people I know in RL and also quite a few who have posted here but I didn't say it was true for everyone cause I know better.

Fury :rose:

I know I've heard this, and from people I trust, but I wonder too. K is in construction, and has often lead a crew. He loves it. He's naturally a leader. Another PYL I know is the manager of a restraunt. I think, at the most, that this is one of those rules with exceptions. On the other hand I'm a stay-at-home-mom - I'm the boss most of the time. lol
 
Back
Top