So, Doms, is it because you are too inadequate in real life?

[Betticus]

fair enough grass hopper, but i thought Kung Fu was chinesse? may this one leave A/all?

Nope, Kung Fu is Mandarin! As opposed to the Jiu Jitsu stylings of the Cantonese! They say you can tell no difference but it's as if you are speaking two different languages.

 

[Slutacus]

Some dominants dom it because it's deeply fulfilling, it feels like the right thing to do (just like submitting feels so right for some subs). It's who they are, in their core of cores. It also feels deeply loving and giving: domination is the purest expression of love that some people know. Domination in some people is extremely self-sacrificing and other-centered. You're giving someone who really loves being controlled the thing she craves most while at the same time filling your strongest sexual and emotional needs. This type of domination often have a caretaking or parental aspect to it, and some men love to be daddies and make sad lonely little girls feel good about themselves and their lives and feel loved and cared for. It's joyful and fulfilling (I know I already used that word) and having a protege to care for, teach, heal, protect, and benvolently boss around while making a woman extraordinarily happy is some mens' dream of heaven.

This isn't the only form of dominance out there, but it's one that doesn't get mentioned often enough, I think. While it's a nice ideal, I don't think it applies to someone who hasn't had these cravings before or been trying to fill them for most of his life. Trying to be that way when you are not or when you don't need such feelings to feel content or at peace is just being untrue to your real self and that will always come back and bite you. So I'm not really sure what to tell you. I've never seen a good solution to the one-is-vanilla/one-is-kinky partnership, but that isn't to say it can't be done. Maybe you and yours will invent one.

 

[Sir Quam]

Sean - your question, in its origional form, deserves an answer, I believe.

Your assumption, perhaps, is that those of Us who Dominate are looking to somehow replace or reclaim the power We believe We lack. There are, undoubtedly, dominants (case letter "d") who are sick fucks and who find the need to find their own power through the use of another. These people are called ABUSERS. They abuse others who are less powerful than they perceive themselves to be through many means.

Dominants (capital letter "D") are not abusers. Certainly, some of Us engage in activities that seem quite severe. Those We engage with consent to the level of play. Abuse is not consentual. D/s or BDSM play is.

Now - to the thought that We Dominate to meet a need - Well , We do. My need is to protect, care for, love, and please the one My Husband and I eventually invite to be Our slave. My needs are not to replace My power - rather to use the power I have to offer My best to another.

D/s, in its most true form, is a serving relationship. Personally, I don't have any regard for a Dominant who refuses to see His or Her duty to serve His or Her submissive or slave. In My way of thinking, such a Dominant is a borderline abuser. My perception and My perception only.

Perhaps that gives you a nutshell understanding. Beyond this, I doubt you will have interest in understanding the deeper nuances of Domination and of what being a Dominant means. I realize that your question may have been asked because you have a true desire to know, but I believe that you may not be ready for more.

Another 2 cents from an amazingly boring mind.....

Chloe

Capital ideas on D/s and excellent punctuation to boot!

 

[graceanne]

OMG, WHAT HAVE I DONE?!?!?!

I don't know. What have you done? We were making cookie posts long before you joing.

 

[HawkEye38]

I don't know. What have you done? We were making cookie posts long before you joing.

oops

shhh, you're hurting my ego

 

[Caitlynne]

*pouts*

OK, where are the cookies hidden?

 

[Rrrosyn]

Do you feel the need to dominate someone because it's the only way you can feel like you're in control of your own life?

I've been dominant in a playful way since I was eight. So this is not why I have a dominant personality in my relationship. However, while I am responsible for my own choices and their consequences and am in that fashion in control of my life, I cannot claim to really have much control over my life in general. Illness, etc have more of a control than I do and have for a couple decades. Yes, it is nice to have something (or someone) that I can be in control of. But seriously, a dog would be a lot easier to manage.

Does the feeling of subjugating others make you feel better?

No subjugation. Only spankings are ones he enjoys. Overall it is just that he treats me like a proper Lady and is considerate of my needs before his. A lot of guys could be like this in perfectly vanilla relationships. We just have a little kinky added into the mix. It's who we are, how we interact with each other.

Anyone who does this is a bully and/or an abuser. The definition reminds me of the bullies in grade school.

Is it a repressed feeling of inadequacy?

No need to repress them. *snickers* The areas in which I am inadequate will either be balanced out elsewhere or fixed with education and practice.

 

[snowy ciara]

Jees, for people who are used to getting beaten by their lovers you sure are a bunch of sensitive sissies. We invite mockery if we can't laugh along.

Besides, they usually speak Mandarin in Kung-Fu movies.

Nope, not a sissy, just too impatient with these wankers. Re the Mandarin, so noted, but the example still stands. I will go change the Japanese to Mandarin and the Japan to China for you, though. I'd offer you a cookie, but I know how you feel about cookies...

 

[Slutacus]

Nope, not a sissy, just too impatient with these wankers. Re the Mandarin, so noted, but the example still stands. I will go change the Japanese to Mandarin and the Japan to China for you, though. I'd offer you a cookie, but I know how you feel about cookies...

Except of course for the little fact (facts? you are aware of those annoying little things--minor cousins to truth I hear--what?) that he _wasn't_ a wanker but a serious person with a serious question (not to mention a serious problem behind it) who happened to phrase said question in such a way that, while it seemed like a perferctly natural, not to mention honest--a rare element one doesn't often find in "The Land of Milk and Cookies" where everybody must be nice and agree with everybody else--response, at least to the thread starter, was bound to cause those whose sense of self-importance is so high that they imagine any old thing said online is always said about them personally (even if their names are never mentioned) to take deep umbrage at his audacity.(Don't hate me because I'm long--I swear, I parse well in the end, particularly in the end, I might add. ) But oh no, he's obviously just masturbating hotly and heavily (in case anybody doesn't know, that's what wanking _really_ means--another one of those pesky little facts--right) wanking gloriously away over getting a group of people who take themselves too seriously all riled up. Yep, that one always gets my own juices overflowing. Soooo Hor-NAY! I mean, if you must insult someone, doesn't it behoove you, if you wish to be taken seriously by those who read carefully, to try to chose a descriptor that fits the actual behavior?

Cliff Notes: In my opinion, the thread starter asked a sincere question and continuing to call such behavior "masturbation" is the equivlent of fooliarmous extremus. (Apologies to Harry Potter)

 

[Red Sonja]

Except of course for the little fact (facts? you are aware of those annoying little things--minor cousins to truth I hear--what?) that he _wasn't_ a wanker but a serious person with a serious question (not to mention a serious problem behind it) who happened to phrase said question in such a way that, while it seemed like a perferctly natural, not to mention honest--a rare element one doesn't often find in "The Land of Milk and Cookies" where everybody must be nice and agree with everybody else--response, at least to the thread starter, was bound to cause those whose sense of self-importance is so high that they imagine any old thing said online is always said about them personally (even if their names are never mentioned) to take deep umbrage at his audacity.(Don't hate me because I'm long--I swear, I parse well in the end, particularly in the end, I might
add. ) But oh no, he's obviously just masturbating hotly and heavily (in case anybody doesn't know, that's what wanking _really_ means--another one of those pesky little facts--right) wanking gloriously away over getting a group of people who take themselves too seriously all riled up. Yep, that one always gets my own juices overflowing. Soooo Hor-NAY! I mean, if you must insult someone, doesn't it behoove you, if you wish to be taken seriously by those who read carefully, to try to chose a descriptor that fits the actual behavior?

Cliff Notes: In my opinion, the thread starter asked a sincere question and continuing to call such behavior "masturbation" is the equivlent of fooliarmous extremus. (Apologies to Harry Potter)

Great googly moogly... In my opinion, the thread starter was not sincere. If he had been sincere, his question would have been phrased a wee bit better. Typically, if I am seeking assistance or understanding, I will not insult (and will even try to avoid giving the appearance that I am insulting) those from whom I seek that assistance.

The fact that he later disclosed his alleged problem after being told his post was nothing but malice and receiving no responses indicates to me that he wasn't getting any gratification from the thread and had to back pedal in order to get some sort of response.

I agree with snowy. It may have been verbal masturbation and not physical wankery but the post was made to gratify some impulse, and certainly not to ask a sincere question.

 

[sexymom]

The thread starter did ask a legitimate question. Why he chose to ask it in a manner that pretty much guaranteed that he wouldn't get a legitimate answer is a mystery.

 

[Betticus]

The thread starter did ask a legitimate question. Why he chose to ask it in a manner that pretty much guaranteed that he wouldn't get a legitimate answer is a mystery.

If I were to be involved with a woman who was puritanically vanilla, who asked me to only have sex with her during her most fertile time, only for reproduction and only in the church approved missionary position and I were to ask others of her persuasion about the attraction for her of this kind of thing it wouldn't be so different.

"What is your need to forego your natural inclinations and needs in order to live you life by some idiots "pure" view of sex"? "Do you get off on emasculation"? "Did your mother ignore you as a child"?

It would be something like that and I'm sure that it would offend puritans. I just assumed it was a similar kind of thing that drove his initial phrasing of his comments.

 

[sexymom]

Quote:"What is your need to forego your natural inclinations and needs in order to live you life by some idiots "pure" view of sex"? "Do you get off on emasculation"? "Did your mother ignore you as a child"?

It would be something like that and I'm sure that it would offend puritans. I just assumed it was a similar kind of thing that drove his initial phrasing of his comments. End Quote.

It would be something like that for people with double digit IQs and below average communication skills. The fact that he didn't have a clue as to what her natural inclinations and needs are, why he perceives what she is doing as emasculation- which seems to be more his problem than hers- and why she has a serious problem because she doesn't do things his way, seems to be 'way over his head. In a few years, if he studies a lot, he may be ready for the answer.

 

[snowy ciara]

Except of course for the little fact (facts? you are aware of those annoying little things--minor cousins to truth I hear--what?) that he _wasn't_ a wanker but a serious person with a serious question (not to mention a serious problem behind it) who happened to phrase said question in such a way that, while it seemed like a perferctly natural, not to mention honest--a rare element one doesn't often find in "The Land of Milk and Cookies" where everybody must be nice and agree with everybody else--response, at least to the thread starter, was bound to cause those whose sense of self-importance is so high that they imagine any old thing said online is always said about them personally (even if their names are never mentioned) to take deep umbrage at his audacity.(Don't hate me because I'm long--I swear, I parse well in the end, particularly in the end, I might add. ) But oh no, he's obviously just masturbating hotly and heavily (in case anybody doesn't know, that's what wanking _really_ means--another one of those pesky little facts--right) wanking gloriously away over getting a group of people who take themselves too seriously all riled up. Yep, that one always gets my own juices overflowing. Soooo Hor-NAY! I mean, if you must insult someone, doesn't it behoove you, if you wish to be taken seriously by those who read carefully, to try to chose a descriptor that fits the actual behavior?

Cliff Notes: In my opinion, the thread starter asked a sincere question and continuing to call such behavior "masturbation" is the equivlent of fooliarmous extremus. (Apologies to Harry Potter)

Cut the flamage Slutacus, and double check your facts. My wanker comment was aimed at Hobbit, NOT at the thread starter sean. In my first post, I did denigrate sean's posting style, as I felt it was deliberately inflammatory, but also acknowleged that it was a legimate question and thanked those, including Marquis who had answered it. It seemed obvious to me, and apparently to most posters, as you're the only one who commented on it. Re the wanker comment, it's my personal feeling that people who come here to start crap, and there is a certain amount of mental masturbation involved in baiting people and trying to start crap. I'm not as hung up on my "status" on the forums here as you seem to think. I'm not going to get involved in a flame war with you as it's just not my style. So put me on ignore or get over your bad self.

 

[dolf]

ooo, bitch slapping each other!

the question was genuine, this is a fact.
anyone saying differently is projecting just a teeny bit and needs to adjust the paranoia valves.

...and asking the question in a forum full of experienced practitioners would, by some at least, be considered research. there's not a single question asked on this board that couldn't be answered by "research".

and Betticus wears lace panties.

 

[blue kat]

Do you feel the need to dominate someone because it's the only way you can feel like you're in control of your own life? Does the feeling of subjugating others make you feel better? Is it a repressed feeling of inadequacy?

No, it's not. I'm very much in control of my life, and I've had a very successful few years. This year in particular; I took over a failing family business, managed to make some progress on that and not lose any time towards my college degree. I don't feel at all inadequate. While subjugating a partner does make me feel fulfilled, it's not "making up" for anything. The way I see it, some of us are just wired to be in control and some of us are just wired to submit. I don't denigrate subs and masochists, in fact, several of my closest friends are on the s side of the equation. I actually have a hard time with pyls who are into humiliation play. I tend to treasure my subs, and even when they're receiving tremendous satisfaction from being humiliated I'm still uncomfortable.

Except of course for the little fact (facts? you are aware of those annoying little things--minor cousins to truth I hear--what?) that he _wasn't_ a wanker but a serious person with a serious question (not to mention a serious problem behind it) who happened to phrase said question in such a way that, while it seemed like a perfectly natural, not to mention honest--a rare element one doesn't often find in "The Land of Milk and Cookies" where everybody must be nice and agree with everybody else--response, at least to the thread starter, was bound to cause those whose sense of self-importance is so high that they imagine any old thing said online is always said about them personally (even if their names are never mentioned) to take deep umbrage at his audacity.(Don't hate me because I'm long--I swear, I parse well in the end, particularly in the end, I might add. ) But oh no, he's obviously just masturbating hotly and heavily (in case anybody doesn't know, that's what wanking _really_ means--another one of those pesky little facts--right) wanking gloriously away over getting a group of people who take themselves too seriously all riled up. Yep, that one always gets my own juices overflowing. Soooo Hor-NAY! I mean, if you must insult someone, doesn't it behoove you, if you wish to be taken seriously by those who read carefully, to try to chose a descriptor that fits the actual behavior?

Cliff Notes: In my opinion, the thread starter asked a sincere question and continuing to call such behavior "masturbation" is the equivalent of fooliarmous extremus. (Apologies to Harry Potter)

Over-react much? Most of us did know ciara wasn't referencing the original poster, and took her comment in a joking manner. I also felt that Hobbit was trying to start something. Which leads me to wonder why you over-reacted so badly? Most of us know her for the intelligent young lady she is and are not about to get judgemental about a brief comment. As you can see in this thread, she's willing to admit when she's wrong! (re the Mandarin/Japenese comment she fixed.) If you're so very concerned about image, consider this: a new poster who seeks to raise themselves in a forum by tearing down a well respected long time poster rarely succeeds.

edited because I forgot to spell-check, and sure as shootin', I missed a few typos. Don't worry Slutacus, I fixed yours, too.

 

[graceanne]

Except of course for the little fact (facts? you are aware of those annoying little things--minor cousins to truth I hear--what?) that he _wasn't_ a wanker but a serious person with a serious question (not to mention a serious problem behind it) who happened to phrase said question in such a way that, while it seemed like a perferctly natural, not to mention honest--a rare element one doesn't often find in "The Land of Milk and Cookies" where everybody must be nice and agree with everybody else--response, at least to the thread starter, was bound to cause those whose sense of self-importance is so high that they imagine any old thing said online is always said about them personally (even if their names are never mentioned) to take deep umbrage at his audacity.(Don't hate me because I'm long--

Um, if you don't like being in the land of milk and cookies, then LEAVE. No one is making you stay. Beyond that it wasn't honest it was rude. If you consider his wording 'honest' then you need to have a look at what you consider honest.

I swear, I parse well in the end, particularly in the end, I might add. ) But oh no, he's obviously just masturbating hotly and heavily (in case anybody doesn't know, that's what wanking _really_ means--another one of those pesky little facts--right) wanking gloriously away over getting a group of people who take themselves too seriously all riled up. Yep, that one always gets my own juices overflowing. Soooo Hor-NAY! I mean, if you must insult someone, doesn't it behoove you, if you wish to be taken seriously by those who read carefully, to try to chose a descriptor that fits the actual behavior?

Cliff Notes: In my opinion, the thread starter asked a sincere question and continuing to call such behavior "masturbation" is the equivlent of fooliarmous extremus. (Apologies to Harry Potter)

And get over it. Everyone knows that just cause soemone isn't stroking themselves at the moment doesn't mean that they aren't getting off on pissing people off.

Beyond that, if you're so fucking smart, why don't you consider that snowy's an established member of the board. Anyone with half a brain knows not to pick on people who've been here longer. Whether you like it or not their is a power structure, and snowy's a favorite here.

So as I already said, if you don't like the way we post here THEN GO AWAY. We won't miss you, i promise.

 

[Marquis]

What's this?

Open warfare on the BDSM board?

*rips shirt off and yells like Conan*

 

[graceanne]

What's this?

Open warfare on the BDSM board?

*rips shirt off and yells like Conan*

Dork.

I think my mommy instinct came in. No one picks on my snowy. Especially when she's sick. Grr.

 

[graceanne]

Over-react much? Most of us did know ciara wasn't referencing the original poster, and took her comment in a joking manner. I also felt that Hobbit was trying to start something. Which leads me to wonder why you over-reacted so badly? Most of us know her for the intelligent young lady she is and are not about to get judgemental about a brief comment. As you can see in this thread, she's willing to admit when she's wrong! (re the Mandarin/Japenese comment she fixed.) If you're so very concerned about image, consider this: a new poster who seeks to raise themselves in a forum by tearing down a well respected long time poster rarely succeeds.

*hugs* I love you Kat. In a totally friend type way, of course.

 

[blue kat]

Baby, if you ever switch, I want your number! If you can't manage to come back as a lesbian in the next life, I'll come back as a bio-male for you!

 

[graceanne]

Baby, if you ever switch, I want your number! If you can't manage to come back as a lesbian in the next life, I'll come back as a bio-male for you!

Woo hoo!

 

[Marquis]

If you're so very concerned about image, consider this: a new poster who seeks to raise themselves in a forum by tearing down a well respected long time poster rarely succeeds.

Um, if you don't like being in the land of milk and cookies, then LEAVE. No one is making you stay.

Beyond that, if you're so fucking smart, why don't you consider that snowy's an established member of the board. Anyone with half a brain knows not to pick on people who've been here longer. Whether you like it or not their is a power structure, and snowy's a favorite here.

So as I already said, if you don't like the way we post here THEN GO AWAY. We won't miss you, i promise.

This has to be the most hypocritical, pugnacious, jingoistic bullshit I have ever read in my fucking life.

NO ONE OWNS THE FORUM.

No one has any more right to be here than anyone else. Do you think I like hearing idle flirtations and mutual ego masturbation all the fucking time? Do I throw my arms up and whine like a bitch?

No, I skim through the flowery bullshit looking for something intelligent, insightful or provocative. Sometimes I find it, often I don't.

So we have here a GOOD question asked by someone who doesn't usually post here and owes us NO special courtesy or respect that we haven't earned, and we bitch and moan like a bunch of Victorian socialites. Then, in the same thread, we tell a new poster with opinions and obvious intelligence that SHE is unwelcome.

Is there a secret pact against the actual exchange of ideas that I didn't know about?

 

[graceanne]

This has to be the most hypocritical, pugnacious, jingoistic bullshit I have ever read in my fucking life.

NO ONE OWNS THE FORUM.

No one has any more right to be here than anyone else. Do you think I like hearing idle flirtations and mutual ego masturbation all the fucking time? Do I throw my arms up and whine like a bitch?

No, I skim through the flowery bullshit looking for something intelligent, insightful or provocative. Sometimes I find it, often I don't.

So we have here a GOOD question asked by someone who doesn't usually post here and owes us NO special courtesy or respect that we haven't earned, and we bitch and moan like a bunch of Victorian socialites. Then, in the same thread, we tell a new poster with opinions and obvious intelligence that SHE is unwelcome.

Is there a secret pact against the actual exchange of ideas that I didn't know about?

Where in teh world did you get that I think someone own's the forum? Beyond that, what I said is if she doesn't like it here, to leave. That works for anyone. If they don't like it here, no one is making them come.

Beyond that, I answered the original posters question. No I didn't go into detail, but I didn't need to everyone else had. I don't like the way he put it, but later one he clarified, and so I dropped it.

What I object to is slut's reply to snowy. Namely her comments about everyone agreeing with what the original poster says and her comments about land of cookies and milk. If it bugs her so freaken bad I'll say it again - she can leave. No one is making her stay here and read things here. Period.

 

[blue kat]

Marquis, Slutacus brought up the image thing, we just responded to it. I stand by my comments. Perhaps we all need to step back and take a deep breath, as the emotions are getting out of hand. I never said I "owned" the forum, or that ciara owned the forum or that grace owned the forum; I have always felt it to be a group commodity, "owned" if you will, by the posters. And when one of us is unfairly attacked, I will defend them, whether or not they're a friend of mine or not, and whether or the other person is. I do think that Slutacus over-reacted, I'm not sure why he did, but if the positions were reversed and I thought Ciara was over the line, I'd tell her, and I have done so in the past. I also felt that the original questions were good ones, which is why I answered them.