Premises, premises, always premises.

[RJMasters]

Goodmorning Ishmael,

I pretty much thought that is what you were addressing. As I said above, I have been in many of these exact discussions, and found that they never do much good except to fustrate or make me grumpy.

The problem always comes down to this:

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then its a duck.

Except we can't agree on what a "duck is" making the above logic inconsequnetial in making an appeal or making it useless as a standard.

Not only can't we agree on the terms or definitions, there is a whole slough of permutations involved from a contextual standpoint. Suchas, is a person submissive to everyone or just one person? are they submissive on the job or just at home? Are we talking about natural submissiveness or a submissive by choice? The same questions can be asked of dominants. Again all of which are up for interpretation in regards to what definition is applied to the term submissive or dominant.

This is also why when the word "real" is used, it is met with equal disdain. Because "real" implies that you are operating from a known definition, which can't possibly be accepted because my definition is not the same as yours, therefore "real" is no longer consider absolute but relative.

If it walks like D/s and talks like D/s then it is D/s

This is also a useless argument because as I have said, we can't agree upon what "D" is or what "s" is.

So the question is...now what?

lol, if you want to know how I have dealt with it, your welcome to pm and I will share it with you.

You can say to me, but Rich...a duck "is" a duck and D "is" a D and a s "is" a s....and I will shrug and smile and respond of course, but I am not the one you are trying to convice. I am merely pointing out the uselessness of trying to convince those who do not share your defintions, hence any hope of generating a self examination or change is rendered mute and a futile task.

Please understand that this is not me making light of your intentions or your efforts, it is more like me saying, been there...bought the T-shirt and your more than welcome to borrow it as I am not using it anymore kinda of thing.

~Rich

 

[nh23]

No, Noir did not make a similar post because Noir was not doing some weasely calling out without calling out circular dance, he was saying "this is the bullshit I see across the board" not "ew ew ew did you see what *X* did? Let the shame begin."


What community? Lit? Leather? What's being usurped here? I ask this because honestly, I've never come across a bunch of pervs without subterfuge, the good the bad and the ugly. Do we really have to remind ourselves, like newbies, that not everyone in the scene who professes to have your best interests at heart actually does?

I submit ha ha that one can only be manipulated to the degree they allow it to happen after a point. Have people tried to top me from below? Yes, with different measures of success and failure. Live learn dust off, and move on.

If the threat is "you're turning off the people who you are trying to convince you are submissive" is being thrown out, then there's a nice scalding flipside.

Whining doesn't scream "Dom".

Topping from the bottom IS a vailid discussion and a valid complaint. Assuming that you are talking about a 1. Top 2. bottom 3. within the scope of a consentual interaction based on a mutual dynamic.

If Mistress Godiva is pissed that my behavior isn't proper, but I haven't agreed to be in any kind of a submissive position to her, how do I not get to tell her to stuff it?

If she doesn't like how I'm dealing with my top, then tell my top, not me. That's the protocol behind this stuff, for what little that's worth. It's not your job to chastise someone else's property unless the owner has invited you to do that, no matter how little respect you may have for the dynamic of that owner and that property.

Who'd have thought the answer was in protocol?

*Applauds wildly*

 

[JMohegan]

Just because someone labels themselves as a sub should that be taken as gospel?

To me, this is like asking: Just because someone labels themselves heterosexual should that be taken as gospel?


If I do not find a woman mentally and physically appealing (in a way that sparks my interest in a personal relationship), then why should I care how she behaves in an intimate setting?

If I do find her appealing, then the "sub" designation is far too broad to be useful anyway. We'd have a whole hell of a lot more ground to cover before determining whether she and I would be well-matched. And in the process of covering that ground (i.e., getting to know her as an individual), I should be able to determine whether or not she is submissive per the only definition that really matters to me:

submissive = one who inspires me to control her in the context of a personal relationship, and responds well when I do.

 

[JMohegan]

I submit ha ha that one can only be manipulated to the degree they allow it to happen after a point. Have people tried to top me from below? Yes, with different measures of success and failure. Live learn dust off, and move on.

If the threat is "you're turning off the people who you are trying to convince you are submissive" is being thrown out, then there's a nice scalding flipside.

Whining doesn't scream "Dom".

Topping from the bottom IS a vailid discussion and a valid complaint. Assuming that you are talking about a 1. Top 2. bottom 3. within the scope of a consentual interaction based on a mutual dynamic.

If Mistress Godiva is pissed that my behavior isn't proper, but I haven't agreed to be in any kind of a submissive position to her, how do I not get to tell her to stuff it?

If she doesn't like how I'm dealing with my top, then tell my top, not me. That's the protocol behind this stuff, for what little that's worth. It's not your job to chastise someone else's property unless the owner has invited you to do that, no matter how little respect you may have for the dynamic of that owner and that property.

Who'd have thought the answer was in protocol?

Topping from the bottom is a phrase that has always amused me. Why don't we call it: bottoming from the top? To the extent the dynamic has actually been flipped, the two are one and the same, are they not?


On the subject of the proper way to inform a Top that his/her bottom is topping from the bottom, I think we should we call that: attempting to Top from outside the relationship. Ha, ha! Really, the irony is such that I find this type of thing laughable.

 

[Quint]

.............

 

[ecstaticsub]

Topping from the bottom is a phrase that has always amused me. Why don't we call it: bottoming from the top? To the extent the dynamic has actually been flipped, the two are one and the same, are they not?


On the subject of the proper way to inform a Top that his/her bottom is topping from the bottom, I think we should we call that: attempting to Top from outside the relationship. Ha, ha! Really, the irony is such that I find this type of thing laughable.

Excellent point, Thanks for making me smile and laugh

 

[JMohegan]

If there has ever been any proof that I'm polyamorous, it is that my is so equally divided between you and Netzach.

Considering both the source and the company in which you've placed me, that's a mighty fine compliment. Thanks.

Excellent point, Thanks for making me smile and laugh

Quite welcome. Glad I'm not the only one who finds this humorous!

 

[the captians wench]

Topping from the bottom is a phrase that has always amused me. Why don't we call it: bottoming from the top? To the extent the dynamic has actually been flipped, the two are one and the same, are they not?


On the subject of the proper way to inform a Top that his/her bottom is topping from the bottom, I think we should we call that: attempting to Top from outside the relationship. Ha, ha! Really, the irony is such that I find this type of thing laughable.

Haven't we talked about bottoming from the top as well?

I think I was married to some one like that.

 

[Netzach]

Well, I guess you can divide the world happily among people who only want to boss the people they're in love with around and people who need to boss everyone around all the time. I guess this explains the me, JMo and Quint circle jerk well enough if anything.

As for being manipulated, because I like that catch phrase better than other ones, I tolerate a certain amount of that from M, while I stamp my foot every time it rears its ugly head with H. To me this is one of the defining differences between owning a slave and being married to someone who's generally submissive by temprement, but not bowling 300 in the obedience department - someone for whom the relationship is more key than the perfect obedience factor.

I know what I want and I get it in each case.

I also can't for the life of me remember if a year ago I asked someone to do something and he dared to say "no" I'm sure it was dealt with at the time or something. It's my own history as much as anyone else's that I might write off as being too old to worry about because I am of the life is short and I embrace change school of thought.

 

[Netzach]

Goodmorning Ishmael,

I pretty much thought that is what you were addressing. As I said above, I have been in many of these exact discussions, and found that they never do much good except to fustrate or make me grumpy.

The problem always comes down to this:

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then its a duck.

Except we can't agree on what a "duck is" making the above logic inconsequnetial in making an appeal or making it useless as a standard.

Not only can't we agree on the terms or definitions, there is a whole slough of permutations involved from a contextual standpoint. Suchas, is a person submissive to everyone or just one person? are they submissive on the job or just at home? Are we talking about natural submissiveness or a submissive by choice? The same questions can be asked of dominants. Again all of which are up for interpretation in regards to what definition is applied to the term submissive or dominant.

This is also why when the word "real" is used, it is met with equal disdain. Because "real" implies that you are operating from a known definition, which can't possibly be accepted because my definition is not the same as yours, therefore "real" is no longer consider absolute but relative.

If it walks like D/s and talks like D/s then it is D/s

This is also a useless argument because as I have said, we can't agree upon what "D" is or what "s" is.

So the question is...now what?

lol, if you want to know how I have dealt with it, your welcome to pm and I will share it with you.

You can say to me, but Rich...a duck "is" a duck and D "is" a D and a s "is" a s....and I will shrug and smile and respond of course, but I am not the one you are trying to convice. I am merely pointing out the uselessness of trying to convince those who do not share your defintions, hence any hope of generating a self examination or change is rendered mute and a futile task.

Please understand that this is not me making light of your intentions or your efforts, it is more like me saying, been there...bought the T-shirt and your more than welcome to borrow it as I am not using it anymore kinda of thing.

~Rich

Do you think that maybe, the issue is to just say "wow, this person is a selfish manipulative bitch?"

Instead of even bothering to figure out whether or not that goes against subbie decorum?

I mean anyone, D/s/switch or whatever can be a toxic asshole. Maybe as a FDom I have more sanction socially for going "ew, that' guy's a creep" if he's a bottom without going on to break down whether his creep-ness makes him "not submissive ."

Make sense?

If you want to dredge my posts which only go back like five years, (oy) one can see, I believe, that I have a very strong history of chiming in when the distaff and white knight side of the SM world trot out "he is no Dominant, he did this that and the other" to say "no, I think he's Dominant. An asshole perhaps, but a Dominant asshole."

I've always been against the prioritizing of traits that are, after all many will argue, analagous to blond hair or short stubby toes, and making them into something that somehow magically presumes lack of bad behavior or intent.

 

[Netzach]

So if you had to break down what Noir said in his post and summarize it, what exactly was he saying?

From my pov, I summarize what he said in four points...

- there are a lot of people who say they are submissive but their actions tell a different story
- there are a lot of people who are saying they are dominant but their actions tell a different story
- Anyone who speaks up about it or says the king has no clothes get attacked.
- I need to take a break because I am sick of tolerating the BS.

I think that is a fair break down of what Noir said.

I think what is simillar in what Ishmael is saying are the first two things that Noir said. I might agree with you that trying to hold an intellectual discussion that has personal overtones may not be the best method and in some ways may comprimise the credibility of holding such a discussion, but it doesn't negate the validity of what's being raised.

Does Ishmael have a right to bring up a bad personal experience where he got involved with a person who made the claim they were submissive, but as it turned out they were not. Does he further have the right to use that as a springboard to highlight a much bigger problem that he sees? Heck we get 5 or 6 threads started here a week from submissives who bring up a bad personal experience with a dom and it always is used as a spring board to point to bigger problems and such.

I am not saying that I disagree with your advice Netzach about dusting off your feet and moving on. Infact that is probably the best advice since there will be no resolution or answers. There certainly won't be change. When I say move on, I am not necessarily refering to the past relationship either, as much as I am referring to the issue as a whole.

It is self deceptive for anyone to have an expectation that this community would ever have a unified defintion of what it means to be Dominant or submissive. Further there will be no accountability for the individual or for the community as a whole because there is no standard by which to form a criteria to judge. For some this is seen as a good thing, for others it is the very reason why they tire of the BS and need to take a break or leave.

I haven't joined in this discussion because A. I don't have a personal axe to grind with the people that are involved. yes I do have an opinion, but if that opinion is wanted, they can pm and ask. Since they haven't, I see it as none of my business to express it publicly. and B. if it is about larger issues in the community as a whole, I have been through this argument enough times to realize it is a waste of time and energy.

OK, so I guess the question is: is it reasonable to expect someone to comply with your wishes based on your self identification as a Dominant, and her self-identification as a sub to someone, somewhere in the universe.

My opinion remains "no."

IF she explicitly says she wants to submit to YOU, then you have another matter. Now it IS a blatant case of bait, switch, what the hell?

I reiterate, whatever that "no" is about and whatever you, as the Top are willing to tolerate and "work on" or not are the deciding factors. Some people won't tolerate being spoken to before speaking. I'd hate to take that personal quirk out into the world and decide this was the hinge upon which my definition of real submission turned.

If it didn't I might start being judged in this community based on whether I do what you tell me to, Ish, Shadowsdream, Eb, take your pick. Nothing personal, but that's a cold day in hell, as it would be for you to start taking directive from me.

 

[Ishmael]

Do you think that maybe, the issue is to just say "wow, this person is a selfish manipulative bitch?"

Instead of even bothering to figure out whether or not that goes against subbie decorum?

I mean anyone, D/s/switch or whatever can be a toxic asshole. Maybe as a FDom I have more sanction socially for going "ew, that' guy's a creep" if he's a bottom without going on to break down whether his creep-ness makes him "not submissive ."

Make sense?

Actually I was just thinking the same thing. Strip the behavior of anything to do with BDSM. Is the behavior what you would find acceptable in a casual aquaintance you might meet in a public setting? If the answer is 'no', then any further discussion is unnecessary.

Ishmael

 

[Netzach]

Actually I was just thinking the same thing. Strip the behavior of anything to do with BDSM. Is the behavior what you would find acceptable in a casual aquaintance you might meet in a public setting? If the answer is 'no', then any further discussion is unnecessary.

Ishmael

Magically we appear to be in total agreement.

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[Ishmael]

That tends to be how I judge all behaviour on forums... over time, I do form opinions of people's self-appointed labels, based on how they present themselves on a forum - which does impact how seriously I take their opinions on various threads. I don't worry much about if they are being "subbie enough" or a "real dominant" (whatever those two things are), but I do keep a mental list of people I blow off and people I listen to.

At times it's easy to try to relate to the forum subject matter when there is actually a much larger truth out there. (Maybe, in that all behavior judgements tend to be subjective.)

Un-sub or un-dom behavior being only a subset of generally bad behavior, period. (Interestingly enough, I can see instances where generally bad behavior could be judged to be perfectly acceptable within the context of BDSM.)

Ishmael

 

[FurryFury]

Well, I guess you can divide the world happily among people who only want to boss the people they're in love with around and people who need to boss everyone around all the time. I guess this explains the me, JMo and Quint circle jerk well enough if anything.

As for being manipulated, because I like that catch phrase better than other ones, I tolerate a certain amount of that from M, while I stamp my foot every time it rears its ugly head with H. To me this is one of the defining differences between owning a slave and being married to someone who's generally submissive by temprement, but not bowling 300 in the obedience department - someone for whom the relationship is more key than the perfect obedience factor.

I know what I want and I get it in each case.

I also can't for the life of me remember if a year ago I asked someone to do something and he dared to say "no" I'm sure it was dealt with at the time or something. It's my own history as much as anyone else's that I might write off as being too old to worry about because I am of the life is short and I embrace change school of thought.

I don't fit into your categories. I don't want to control anyone I love or the rest of the world. I want them to control themselves, like, I dunno, an adult, I guess.

I have to control myself. Sometimes I resent it but I step up because no one else does and I won't allow myself to make what I consider to be the "wrong" or perhaps "selfish" choices.

 

[Netzach]

I don't fit into your categories. I don't want to control anyone I love or the rest of the world. I want them to control themselves, like, I dunno, an adult, I guess.

I have to control myself. Sometimes I resent it but I step up because no one else does and I won't allow myself to make what I consider to be the "wrong" or perhaps "selfish" choices.

I'm talking on the "small head" level, you are being way more philosophical.

 

[rosco rathbone]

What can one take away from that behavior?

Ishmael

A lesson regarding the need for patience, persistence and will.

 

[Recidiva]

A lesson regarding the need for patience, persistence and will.

/happy camper threadjack

ROSCO!

 

[Netzach]

A lesson regarding the need for patience, persistence and will.

How you are missed!

(or an opportunity to say to oneself, "hot maybe, but insane" and find other things to do...)

 

[FurryFury]

I'm talking on the "small head" level, you are being way more philosophical.

Maybe. Lack of useful, restful sleep can do that to me.

*chuckles*

 

[intothewoods]

Well, I guess you can divide the world happily among people who only want to boss the people they're in love with around and people who need to boss everyone around all the time. I guess this explains the me, JMo and Quint circle jerk well enough if anything.

As for being manipulated, because I like that catch phrase better than other ones, I tolerate a certain amount of that from M, while I stamp my foot every time it rears its ugly head with H. To me this is one of the defining differences between owning a slave and being married to someone who's generally submissive by temprement, but not bowling 300 in the obedience department - someone for whom the relationship is more key than the perfect obedience factor.

I know what I want and I get it in each case.

I also can't for the life of me remember if a year ago I asked someone to do something and he dared to say "no" I'm sure it was dealt with at the time or something. It's my own history as much as anyone else's that I might write off as being too old to worry about because I am of the life is short and I embrace change school of thought.

Whoa - you three have a circle jerk going on? Can I watch?

Ahem, sorry. Um, I think I might be close to your husband - and actually, the dynamic between the two of you might be kind of what works for me. I mean, if I had to bet money on what arrangement works.

Don't mind me. I'm still searching for where I fit, so when I find something similar I have to do a little happy dance. But when I think about it - your whole "inspection" of him when he gets out of the shower? That's what my current PYL play partner/friend with benefits/whatever does all the time. We are way more likely to have that, then a very formal inspection. While the latter sounds hawt, we just don't seem to go there.

I actually did have a point related to this thread. I'm actually a bit confused by Ishmael's note of the Doms swirling around the subs at issue here. Does that really happen? Isn't it really just flirting?

I mean, hell, I post not very subtle flirtations aimed at my favorite PYLs around here, but I don't think it's all of a sudden a BDSM dance. I guess it just seems like there is this concern for the Doms going a sub-hunting, and I wonder if that's what they're really doing, especially when none of them live near each other. It's just flirting, not an actual search for a PYL/pyl. Right?

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[intothewoods]

I think some of the differing perspectives comes from bringing one's own personal experiences/perspectives into the mix. I watch this conversation (thread), and remember some things that happend on the forum years ago, which influence how I view the general idea that (I think?) Ish is poking at.

Every so often, a trend emerges - possibly born out of flirting... an odd online frenzy-ish thing (doms and subs, alike). It's intersting to watch. I've seen it happen a few different times over the last 3 years - sometimes the frenzy is subtle, sometimes it's more of a kinky-steam roller... But it seems like eventually a comment is made about the behaviour, which then breaks down into a "We're just goofing off/I might be submissive, but I'm not obligated to submit to anyone but my dom/you can kiss my lily white ass!" argument, feathers get ruffled, nothing is accomplished, and the forum settles down until the next time the trend pops up.

If you've only experienced the subtle phases, Ish's argument might not make much sense, and it will look like an argument that submissives should act submissive 24/7, even on an online forum.

But if you've been around during/ever got caught up in the steam-roller moments? Way different perspective on the argument at hand. (Which may be why I read this thread, and can't comprehend a lot of the discord. LOL)

Can you say a little more about this? I did browse the thread that Ishmael linked to earlier, but to me it seemed like the argument was about a fake internet persona. Admittedly, I didn't read it all that carefully.

 

[A Desert Rose]

I think some of the differing perspectives comes from bringing one's own personal experiences/perspectives into the mix. I watch this conversation (thread), and remember some things that happend on the forum years ago, which influence how I view the general idea that (I think?) Ish is poking at.

Every so often, a trend emerges - possibly born out of flirting... an odd online frenzy-ish thing (doms and subs, alike). It's intersting to watch. I've seen it happen a few different times over the last 3 years - sometimes the frenzy is subtle, sometimes it's more of a kinky-steam roller... But it seems like eventually a comment is made about the behaviour, which then breaks down into a "We're just goofing off/I might be submissive, but I'm not obligated to submit to anyone but my dom/you can kiss my lily white ass!" argument, feathers get ruffled, nothing is accomplished, and the forum settles down until the next time the trend pops up.

If you've only experienced the subtle phases, Ish's argument might not make much sense, and it will look like an argument that submissives should act submissive 24/7, even on an online forum.

But if you've been around during/ever got caught up in the steam-roller moments? Way different perspective on the argument at hand. (Which may be why I read this thread, and can't comprehend a lot of the discord. LOL)

This is all very true. Where is Cym or ADE at times like this? LOL Neither of them would hold back on this topic or on a comment about the behavior you mention in your post.

I'll never forget Cym's signature quote: "We are NOT a chat room". And my opposing thread called something like "We ARE a chat room".

Ah the good ol' days...

aaaaaahahahahahaha