Premises, premises, always premises.

[Recidiva]

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

All the focus on someone else's sense of decorum and presentation.

This is not a High School Reunion. We are not all hanging out with nametags rehashing what happened under the bleachers at the Pep Rally.

I'd comment that it's silly to enforce your own standards on a group, or assume the group's standards are your own, but I'd ironically be attempting to set my own standards.

I set those standards for myself, though. I don't enforce them.

 

[A Desert Rose]

All the focus on someone else's sense of decorum and presentation.

This is not a High School Reunion. We are not all hanging out with nametags rehashing what happened under the bleachers at the Pep Rally.

I'd comment that it's silly to enforce your own standards on a group, or assume the group's standards are your own, but I'd ironically be attempting to set my own standards.

I set those standards for myself, though. I don't enforce them.

Are you attacking me for what I think would be the comments of others?

 

[Recidiva]

Are you attacking me for what I think would be the comments of others?

No, I was in fact agreeing with you.

 

[HB1965]

I find the way the conversation on this thread is turning very interesting.

There is an old saying, you can't judge a book by it's cover, and it seems that some people do judge people by their cover. Everyone is a complex person, and it's impossible to see all sides of them. How they present themselves here in the forum is not necessarialy how they are in real live. Some of you may think I'm outrageous and an awful flirt, but if you saw me right now you wouldn't know me. No one in my life except a couple of friends knows that I have submitted to anyone or would even guess that I would, and trust me whether you believe it or not I have.

Calling a spade a spade or a duck a duck is an interesting idea, but in reality it doesn't apply. The face that we show in certain situations is not always the complete us.

I've been sporting the quote in my signature line for a reason which is basically to say that I will do as I please until I have a Dom who tells me he doesn't like it or thinks I should behave differently.


Ok I know, I'm putting my own spin on what other people have said, but I felt like doing it.

 

[intothewoods]

Well, we all make judgments all the time, and all we have to go on here is what a person presents. That said, HB, I don't think the issue is really whether or not you flirt or are outrageous.

And furthermore, I don't think you are really the issue. It's not really appropriate to have a thread about how submissive so-and-so is. Personal disputes should be taken to PMs. That's always my message board policy. <shrug>

I do think it's perfectly appropriate to discuss what is kosher in these forums. I also think it's fine to discuss what it means to be submissive, and everyone is welcome to their opinion.

 

[FungiUg]

To me this whole discussion has seemed to be one big mental wank from (primarily) the "old guard" complaining about the "new people" who "aren't doing it right".

Phooey.

The joy of a place like this is the wealth of different people who are (surprisingly) different! I can't learn from people who are identical to me, or extend myself if everyone around me is the same as I am. I need people who are different. I may not agree with them. I may not like them. But so what?

So I have to ask: who really gives a rats arse if there are submissives running around being "non submissive" by someone's definition. What does it matter? What difference does it make? Similarly, if there are dominants running around being "non dominant". Who does it affect?

And y'know, if there's someone out there for whom "topping from the bottom" or "bottoming from the top" works, all the more power to them! (I've been working on "topping by proxy.") No one said we have to all do this stuff the same way. How boring would that be? Individuality please, not conformity.

Yeah, we all judge people. So what? Does anyone here claim their judgement is infallible? Or that their judgement even matters in every case? I don't feel the need to try and round up a posse to lynch people based on my judgement.

Frankly for myself, it's a non issue. If there's someone I dislike, I will ignore them. If I see someone attacking someone else, I will generally say something. If there's a conversation I'm not interested in, I will simply not read it. If there's a conversation I am interested in but where my opinion differs, I will speak up. So what's the big deal?

I ain't here to control the board. I ain't here to pick up chicks (submissive or otherwise.) I'm here to participate in discussions with a bunch of kinky people, some of whom I like. That's about the crux of it for me.

 

[Homburg]

So I have to ask: who really gives a rats arse if there are submissives running around being "non submissive" by someone's definition. What does it matter? What difference does it make? Similarly, if there are dominants running around being "non dominant". Who does it affect?

I've had both flavours of submissives, and at the same time. I likened it to chocolate and vanilla, and both got licked. Nuff said.

 

[intothewoods]

Eh, I don't think it's fair to say it's just an old guard new guard thing.


Btw, ADR, your box is full.

 

[HB1965]

And furthermore, I don't think you are really the issue.

I don't think I am either, but I do think that the message was clear that I and other submissives who hang out in the cafe have behaved in away that someone else disagrees with. I was mearly trying to state the case from my point of view.

 

[BiBunny]

While I'm still totally confused about what this thread is about, since the focus seems to have jumped from point to point a number of times, I think I can safely say that while there are some people on this board who annoy the living shit out of me, I do try to stay away from them unless they address me directly. It's all anyone can do. If people want to call themselves dominant, submissive, or switchy, that's their prerogative, just like it's my prerogative to sit at my computer and laugh at them, if I so desire. *Shrug*

 

[the_pet]

So a sub hooks up with someone. Dom or not, and is told to do something by that person and the first word is, "No."

I'm not speaking of anything sexual, or dangerous. A small task of little consequence.

What can one take away from that behavior?

Ishmael

insincere...

 

[Lancecastor]

So a sub hooks up with someone. Dom or not, and is told to do something by that person and the first word is, "No."

I'm not speaking of anything sexual, or dangerous. A small task of little consequence.

What can one take away from that behavior?

Ishmael

I view that as a "sub" who either isn't...or she's with the wrong D.

Personally it's a deal-killer for me. Plus, it's fucking boring.

 

[rosco rathbone]

So a sub hooks up with someone. Dom or not, and is told to do something by that person and the first word is, "No."

I'm not speaking of anything sexual, or dangerous. A small task of little consequence.

What can one take away from that behavior?

Ishmael

My first assumption would be that it's some kind of a test by the sub; but this scenario is very vague. There are a million ways to say "No." There's "teehee, don't spank me daddy" no...there's "I'm on a slippery slope to losing my heart to someone who knows my buttons and I'm afraid" no....there's "you were using 20-year old pictures in your Collarme ad and I want to go home right now" no.

 

[JMohegan]

There are a million ways to say "No." There's "teehee, don't spank me daddy" no...there's "I'm on a slippery slope to losing my heart to someone who knows my buttons and I'm afraid" no....there's "you were using 20-year old pictures in your Collarme ad and I want to go home right now" no.

Lol'ing at 1 and 3.

2 is just downright delicious.

 

[Netzach]

Lol'ing at 1 and 3.

2 is just downright delicious.

The problem is the propensity of guys to assume 2 when 1 or 3 are in effect.

 

[lumi]

Guys have a tendency to assume the best explanation for any behavior ... although, I guess it's not just guys, is it? All humans are good at fooling themselves.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I guess the point is basically, if you want to play this domination game: expect to hear "no". And expect to have to do the mindreader thing. It's kind of like picking the ponies...you wonder how this greasy little guy with a toothpick sticking out of his mouth is so successful. Is it magic?

 

[JMohegan]

Ha, ha - I like the word magic, from a marketing standpoint.

Truth is, though - the harder I try, the luckier I get.

 

[Ishmael]

My first assumption would be that it's some kind of a test by the sub; but this scenario is very vague. There are a million ways to say "No." There's "teehee, don't spank me daddy" no...there's "I'm on a slippery slope to losing my heart to someone who knows my buttons and I'm afraid" no....there's "you were using 20-year old pictures in your Collarme ad and I want to go home right now" no.

Actually, you'd be wrong. The premise has nothing to do with a sub/Dom interaction and certainly not any interaction on this board.

Ishmael

 

[Quint]

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

 

[Trinique_Fire]

So a sub hooks up with someone. Dom or not, and is told to do something by that person and the first word is, "No."

I'm not speaking of anything sexual, or dangerous. A small task of little consequence.

What can one take away from that behavior?

Ishmael

Unease, fright, worried that he/she is getting in over his/her head, lack of trust...

It could honestly be any of these.

P.S. I'm speaking as one who is well versed in saying "no" to tasks of little consequence.

 

[Ishmael]

Unease, fright, worried that he/she is getting in over his/her head, lack of trust...

It could honestly be any of these.

P.S. I'm speaking as one who is well versed in saying "no" to tasks of little consequence.

Good enough. Would you take this episode to the board, given that the requestor is;

1. Vanilla, and admitedly so.

2. Belittle said person behind their back for doing nothing more that make a suggestion?

Is it lack of trust? Lack of respect? And if the answer is "Yes" to any of the two, in who is that lack of trust invested?

Other than that, how ya been?

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

See, you just proved that your argument holds no water right there. Rosco is never wrong; his words are just misunderstood by lesser minds.

I move to throw the case out.

I'm sure your movements are notable.

Ishmael

 

[Trinique_Fire]

Good enough. Would you take this episode to the board, given that the requestor is;

1. Vanilla, and admitedly so.

2. Belittle said person behind their back for doing nothing more that make a suggestion?

Is it lack of trust? Lack of respect? And if the answer is "Yes" to any of the two, in who is that lack of trust invested?

Other than that, how ya been?

Ishmael

I probably wouldn't take the episode to the board, especially if this person is uneasy or nervous or shy.

It sounds like lack of trust, but then again, I wasn't there for the whole of what actually happened, so I'm sort of granting the benefit of the doubt here.

All I can really say is that whenever I said no, it was lack of trust in myself, afraid I wouldn't be good enough, be what she was expecting, etc...

I'm o.k. How you been?

 

[Netzach]

Actually, you'd be wrong. The premise has nothing to do with a sub/Dom interaction
Ishmael

Wha?

Then someone asked someone to do something and they said no.

It's not an "alert the media" moment, happens every minute.