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

[dolf]

Holy fuck, Sean, you've been reading waaayyyyy too many Tortured threads.

*dies laughing*

 

[Slutacus]

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.



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.

Heh.

 

[graceanne]

and sean is my friend.

if we play by your rules this could get very ugly and very confusing.

...hobbit on the other hand, well, he has rabies and i think he likes the flaming. kinky fucker. please continue

And I didn't say anything to sean. *sigh*

Hobbit is a troll. I'm not gonna feed him.

 

[Slutacus]

*dies laughing*

That was a good one.

 

[Quint]

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.

I think this grated on me the most. Fuck, I've been here since the days of cymbidia, james_blandings, risia_skye, cellis (regularly), MissTaken, SpectreT, dixicritter, and willowpuss, just to name a few of the fore-fuckin-fathers of this board. Am I sacrosanct? Fuck no. Do my words carry any more worth because I've been here for 3 years? I really hope not. If I said "this was my board first, so knock off the cookie crap or find another board," would I get the time of day? Defend ciara because she was right, but please don't resort to defending her because she was here first.

 

[Slutacus]

And as Grace pointed out, I've rarely seen you attack people for spurious reasons.

Grace's point is nonsense because I didn't critique Snowy for a spurious reason, I critiqued her because Snowy was doing something, that in my opinion, is stupid, closeminded, and cliquish: calling a person with a sincere question and a sincere problem a "wanker." Now, I will admit that Grace would _like_ me to have no reason for "attacking" (I object to that term too, I was merely pointing out some rather hypocritical behavior--I'm sure Snowy wouldn't like it if she asked an honest question somewhere and got called a troll and and wanker for doing so) and the reason she would like that is that it would make it easier for her to villify me. But she can't have that one. I don't care how old or how new someone is here (and just for the record, I, too, remember Cymbidia --remember her quite well, in fact, although not necessarily with much fondness), if they're doing something really ugly and bullying and mobish, I WILL SPEAK UP ABOUT IT. I'm afraid you're going to have to live with my calling hypocricy or even meanness in your friends when I see it , Gracie-poo, because I won't turn into an ass-sucker of the supposed "Forum Elders" simply to please you. I'd rather NOT see a new tiring crop of Cymbidias grow up here, one was quite enough thank you, but with this gang-think you're promoting, I'm afraind it won't be long before that happens.

Oh. One more thing. I thought "Land of Milk and Cookies" was a great play on words. No particular slur meant on Grace's personal cookie thing, just making the observation that sometimes you can't be honest and tell the truth or _see honesty when it it staring you in the face_ online when you get overly involved in unreal, imaginary posturing or a mutual self-congratualtory and cliquish circle-jerk. That is all.

 

[blue kat]

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.

Again, please check it out Slutacous. She never called Sean a wanker. It was a reference to HOBBIT, who is behaving like a troll and trying to get her (and various others) respective goats. She has explicitly said so in the bit I quoted above. In various internet areas such as Usenet, the term "wanker" has also come to mean "troll". For example, I've seen it used as such on alt.torture, alt. bdsm.counterculture (you may need to Google the name of that, it's close enough you should get to it. I'm not on my home system so I don't have the exact addy) as well as some of the alt sci-fi communities. If you want to get mad because she called HOBBIT a wanker, then maybe you might be right. I do agree that trolls and such do indulge in a bit of mental masturbation at the expense of others, though. Being a pain in the arse is an emotional turn on to them.

 

[shy slave]

And I didn't say anything to sean. *sigh*

Hobbit is a troll. I'm not gonna feed him.

I don't see Hobbit as a troll, more a confused individual who does not have the same sense of humour as dolf.

But as she calls him kinky he can't be all bad.

(Although his AV is not my taste, I would prefer the Union Jack flag, but hey the man in the AV looks sexy)

He usually hangs out on the GB, thats my reason for using the word 'confused.'

I don't know Sean, I wondered how his initial post would be taken, but if he is a friend of dolfs and hangs out on the GB that explains everything.

Friends of dolfs are often 'interesting' people
*Please note feel free to insert any other word you deem appropriate in place of 'interesting.'

As a friend of dolfs I choose 'weird, odd and out of sinc with the rest of the world' as alternate wording

 

[Slutacus]

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.

If someone slightly criticizes anything you do it's major flamage, but when you call other people wankers it isn't? (I know, I know, you probably don't think your shit stinks, either--sigh.) You said "these wankers" in the piece I quoted. That implies more than just a singular hobbit. I'm sorry if I misundestood, but given the plural usage I think it was a reasonable misunderstanding. I chose your post to pick on because it was near the end of a long barrage of similarly stupid and closeminded sounding comments, not because I have any personal feelings for you one way or the other. I'm not trying to start a fight with you, I just didn't like your comment and I critiqued it. I'm allowed....I think (even if Grace doesn't think so ). A reasonable response to me would have been to calmly explain my mistake, not get all het up and imagine I was flaming you.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I think this grated on me the most. Fuck, I've been here since the days of cymbidia, james_blandings, risia_skye, cellis (regularly), MissTaken, SpectreT, dixicritter, and willowpuss, just to name a few of the fore-fuckin-fathers of this board. Am I sacrosanct? Fuck no. Do my words carry any more worth because I've been here for 3 years? I really hope not. If I said "this was my board first, so knock off the cookie crap or find another board," would I get the time of day? Defend ciara because she was right, but please don't resort to defending her because she was here first.

hehehe, the olde tyme relijun.

 

[Marquis]

well said Sir.

Thank you, young master of the Shire.

Now fetch me some of old man Shuddlebook's pipeweed and I will see about arranging a truce between my people and yours.

 

[Sean]

Friends of dolfs are often 'interesting' people
*Please note feel free to insert any other word you deem appropriate in place of 'interesting.'

As a friend of dolfs I choose 'weird, odd and out of sinc with the rest of the world' as alternate wording

What are you trying to imply?
OK, I have to be honest, I started this thread as a rant about something. As soon as I hit the submit button, however, I realised I would really like an honest answer. Hence the more conciliatory nature of my subsequent posts.
Those of you who can't see past the vitriol in the first post; like I give a fuck.
Those of you that tried to explain this to me; thankyou.

 

[Sean]

What's this?

Open warfare on the BDSM board?

mea maxima culpa

 

[Red Sonja]

mea maxima culpa

Even though I frankly am one of the folks who can't see past the vitriol... it takes more than one person to tango or engage in warfare. If one looks at the number of posts in this thread and who posted them, it rapidly becomes evident that your culpa is not maxima.

 

[kayte]

mea maxima culpa

Through my most grievious fault...

I have been following this thread, and I couldn't resist that one. I am sorry.



You asked a very valid question Sean. I do hope you have gotten some understanding of what drives a Dom and a sub; even with all of the jocularity here.

It is something deep within the person. It is part of who a person is.

 

[Sean]

Even though I frankly am one of the folks who can't see past the vitriol... it takes more than one person to tango or engage in warfare. If one looks at the number of posts in this thread and who posted them, it rapidly becomes evident that your culpa is not maxima.

Damn, I can't get credit for anything.
This is the longest thread I've ever had.

OK, I think I get the nurturing thing. I'm not sure if I totally swallow it, but at least I understand the reasoning behind it. You see, I treat my partners as equals. I'm not sure that I could ever be a dom (I refuse to use upper case for that, btw). I like my women to be independent. I like them to argue with me when they disagree. Do I like looking after someone I love? Of course I do, it's part of it. The need to formalise it and take it into the bedroom is what I don't understand.

 

[snowy ciara]

If someone slightly criticizes anything you do it's major flamage, but when you call other people wankers it isn't? (I know, I know, you probably don't think your shit stinks, either--sigh.) You said "these wankers" in the piece I quoted. That implies more than just a singular hobbit. I'm sorry if I misundestood, but given the plural usage I think it was a reasonable misunderstanding. I chose your post to pick on because it was near the end of a long barrage of similarly stupid and closeminded sounding comments, not because I have any personal feelings for you one way or the other. I'm not trying to start a fight with you, I just didn't like your comment and I critiqued it. I'm allowed....I think (even if Grace doesn't think so ). A reasonable response to me would have been to calmly explain my mistake, not get all het up and imagine I was flaming you.

Oy, where to start.

This is me being calm and collected, I'm not mad now, and I wasn't particularly mad before.

Okay, apology accepted. I don't know where you got the idea that I don't think my shit stinks; I have erred on these boards and apologized when necessary. I have actually eaten crow on this very thread.

My comment about about flamage was intended simply as a warning shot that I will not allow this thing to turn into a pissing contest. I realize that you had not yet flamed me, I was trying to avoid further disintegration of the thread. My apologies for the lack of clarity. I was in a hurry as well as trying to concentrate in a chaotic situation. I was at the boarding area for my flight this morning.

That being said, I do not speak for this board. You said

I chose your post to pick on because it was near the end of a long barrage of similarly stupid and close minded sounding comments, not because I have any personal feelings for you one way or the other. I'm not trying to start a fight with you, I just didn't like your comment and I critiqued it..

Basically, you disagreed with what others had said before me (including me) yet you chose me to make your point.

I will not be the scapegoat for every one and every thing you disagree with. Period. You have the right to disagree with me and I will defend that right. You do not have the right to hold me responsible for everyone who holds the same opinion that I do. That is both immature and ridiculous.

Board Peeps, my apologies for the hijacking of the thread, as well as a lack of clarity that apparently started all this. I'm out of this thread. We've both apologized, and it's over.

 

[Sir Victor]

There is no doubt that domination is instinctive, how could it not be as it's seen in most if not all animal species? Many people don't seem to want to accept that we are human animals. These instincts come from the lower brain and should be automatic, however humans have an upper brain where we think before we act so that we can make our actions comply with societal norms. Seems it's completely normal to seek dominance and the strongest or the appointed in our modern society are the ones who get it. It really is leadership, in healthy situations a benevolent dictator. There are of course some who use it as an excuse to abuse others and thus there can be different motivations.
It's interesting that you say you have no desire to lead or dominate and I can only think of one possiblity which is that some instincts need to be turned on in that an example of the behavior has to be seen in an early developmental stage. This is a way for less useful instincts to in a sense age out as they're no longer needed. I would not think that dominance falls into this category but I'm no expert in this area. I wonder if you were to see some examples if you might grow to like or crave it? Some couples enjoy play wrestling, perhaps some competition or taunting might bring out the dom in you.

 

[Sean]

There is no doubt that domination is instinctive, how could it not be as it's seen in most if not all animal species? Many people don't seem to want to accept that we are human animals. These instincts come from the lower brain and should be automatic, however humans have an upper brain where we think before we act so that we can make our actions comply with societal norms. Seems it's completely normal to seek dominance and the strongest or the appointed in our modern society are the ones who get it. It really is leadership, in healthy situations a benevolent dictator. There are of course some who use it as an excuse to abuse others and thus there can be different motivations.
It's interesting that you say you have no desire to lead or dominate and I can only think of one possiblity which is that some instincts need to be turned on in that an example of the behavior has to be seen in an early developmental stage. This is a way for less useful instincts to in a sense age out as they're no longer needed. I would not think that dominance falls into this category but I'm no expert in this area. I wonder if you were to see some examples if you might grow to like or crave it? Some couples enjoy play wrestling, perhaps some competition or taunting might bring out the dom in you.

That is quite possibly the biggest load of bullshit I have ever read. And I spend a lot of time in the pol threads on the GB.
Congratulations [flipv] [/flipv]

 

[Sir Victor]

That is quite possibly the biggest load of bullshit I have ever read. And I spend a lot of time in the pol threads on the GB.
Congratulations [flipv] [/flipv]

Why because you don't fit and I turned your offensive wording of the question back in your face? Isn't it all just BS after all?
Your wording of the question suggests where your coming from, should not have responded to a troll.

 

[graceanne]

I have never had a post so misunderstood, and I really can't bring myself to give a damn. I've been posting here for a year and a half and if you all wanna see that in my post, whatever. I don't have the energy to argue with you.

 

[dolf]

Damn, I can't get credit for anything.
This is the longest thread I've ever had.

OK, I think I get the nurturing thing. I'm not sure if I totally swallow it, but at least I understand the reasoning behind it. You see, I treat my partners as equals. I'm not sure that I could ever be a dom (I refuse to use upper case for that, btw). I like my women to be independent. I like them to argue with me when they disagree. Do I like looking after someone I love? Of course I do, it's part of it. The need to formalise it and take it into the bedroom is what I don't understand.

not all D/s relationships formalised.
some just naturally slip into parent/child or leader/follower.
not all D/s bedroom life is whips & chains...some people are just "on top" by nature and others are more passive.

in some ways my last relationship was fairly extreme...my life was micro managed to a degree that most subs wouldn't want...but i never knelt at his feet and called him sir. it was just the natural balance of our relationship. it suited both of us.
we still argued, i still kicked his but on many subjects, i still had the last word when it came to the kids, he still respected my intellect.

you have a fixed image of some ritualised, artificial, pleather wearing affair.

for some of us it's far softer, more natural, not something we even think about. just is.

 

[dolf]

I don't know Sean, I wondered how his initial post would be taken, but if he is a friend of dolfs and hangs out on the GB that explains everything.

Friends of dolfs are often 'interesting' people
*Please note feel free to insert any other word you deem appropriate in place of 'interesting.'

As a friend of dolfs I choose 'weird, odd and out of sinc with the rest of the world' as alternate wording

you're always interesting, shy

 

[buttins2004]

Dominance and submission is not all about one being needy and the other being more powerful over the other. It is about the give and take that any healthy relationship should have.

It is my nature to serve. It makes me happy. Long before I was ever involved in a D/s relationship, I was serving, trying my best to be pleasing and make others happy. And that does not mean just the men in my life, or in a sexual manner.

To watch a smile grow on one's face because of something I have done, makes my day. To make someone's life better in any number of small ways, makes me happy. To sit at ones feet, is my slice of heaven. It allows me to be me.

This does not mean that I don't have needs and wants. It just so happens I was fortunate to find a partner that understands these needs and desires. Together we have created a life that neither of us were able to find with others. And, we constantly are growing and learning more about ourselves and each other.

My partner understands my weaknesses, and my strengths. He loves me completely. He hugs me, cuddles me, teaches me, and learns from me. He also disciplines me, uses me (sexually, and by my choice in giving myself to him), he sets tasks for me. He encourages me to look inside myself, and to grow as a person, a submissive, a business partner, a parent, friend, lover, and finally his slave (and that is a whole other thread.. lol). He has been able to chase away demons that haunted me most of my life, and replaced bad feelings with ones of hope and joy.

We make each other happy.

I usually don't like to be the bearer of bad news, but sometimes two people have to truly look at their relationship, and at times, they find they are not compatible.

It is not a bad thing that you do not desire to be dominant, it just means that possibly, you are coupled with the wrong person. If there were sparks there for you, I would suggest researching this lifestyle... read as much as you can find on the subject... Google it! (Oh how i adore google).

The bottom line is what makes you happy? And do you have what is necessary to create happiness for you partner?

buttins

 

[Marquis]

There is no doubt that domination is instinctive, how could it not be as it's seen in most if not all animal species? Many people don't seem to want to accept that we are human animals. These instincts come from the lower brain and should be automatic, however humans have an upper brain where we think before we act so that we can make our actions comply with societal norms. Seems it's completely normal to seek dominance and the strongest or the appointed in our modern society are the ones who get it. It really is leadership, in healthy situations a benevolent dictator. There are of course some who use it as an excuse to abuse others and thus there can be different motivations.
It's interesting that you say you have no desire to lead or dominate and I can only think of one possiblity which is that some instincts need to be turned on in that an example of the behavior has to be seen in an early developmental stage. This is a way for less useful instincts to in a sense age out as they're no longer needed. I would not think that dominance falls into this category but I'm no expert in this area. I wonder if you were to see some examples if you might grow to like or crave it? Some couples enjoy play wrestling, perhaps some competition or taunting might bring out the dom in you.

Interesting post.

I refuse to believe that even the most BDSM-adverse don't get either submissive or dominant in the bedroom. They may be too dumb to realize it, too uptight to enjoy it or too scared to explore it, but I refuse to believe it isn't there.