The Dom Lounge

[Netzach]

The Master, by residing in the Tao,
sets an example for all beings.
Because he doesn't display himself,
people can see his light.
Because he has nothing to prove,
people can trust his words.
Because he doesn't know who he is,
people recognize themselves in him.
Because he has no goal in mind,
everything he does succeeds.


Tao Te Ching trans. Mitchell

 

[ecstaticsub]

I know your clarifying aspects of ego which you find attractive and how sometimes people can interpret things differently...I just found how you began the paragraph and how you ended the paragraph to be interesting.

Yes, i see what you are saying. Though really the two statement arn't contradictory. The first was a response to Netzach's statement.

Now you have me thinking.....I think what it comes down to for me is on a first impression basis ego and self-centeredness turn me off immediately, especially for a vanilla relationship, including just plain friendships.

But to totally surrender and submit to someone I have to trust that they know what they are doing. Maybe what I am trying to say is I prefer for submission a self-confidence and ego that comes to me over the time it takes to get to know that person as opposed to a- in my face I am better than you- type of ego that is immmediate.

 

[RJMasters]

The Master, by residing in the Tao,
sets an example for all beings.
Because he doesn't display himself,
people can see his light.
Because he has nothing to prove,
people can trust his words.
Because he doesn't know who he is,
people recognize themselves in him.
Because he has no goal in mind,
everything he does succeeds.


Tao Te Ching trans. Mitchell

From the introduction to the translation
by Stephen Mitchell
see also complete translation of Mitchell's
TAO TE CHING ONLINE - http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html

"The reader will notice in the many passages where Lao-tzu describes the Master, I have used the pronoun 'she' at least as often as 'he.' The Chinese language doesn't make this kind of distinction; in English we have to choose. But since we are all, potentially, the Master (since the Master is, essentially, us) I felt it would be untrue to present a male archetype, as other versions have, ironically, done. Ironically, because of all the great world religions the teaching of Lao-tzu is by far the most female. Of course you should feel free, throughout the book, to substitute 'he' for 'she' or vice versa."


Tao Te Ching: Chapter 6
translated by Stephen Mitchell
The Tao is called the Great Mother
empty yet inexhaustible,
it gives birth to infinite worlds.

It is always present within you.
You can use it any way you want.


Tao Te Ching: Chapter 6
translated by Ursula K. Le Guin
The valley spirit never dies
Call it the mystery, the woman.

The mystery,
the Door of the Woman,
is the root
of earth and heaven.

Forever this endures, forever.
And all its uses are easy.

-----------------------

makes me contemplate how the women were treated during this age?

There is no doubt benefit in applying the wisdom of such teaching for both men and women alike, but doubt the validity that there wasn't distinction made during that time between male and female. Even if the language doesn't do it, the culture from which Lao-tzu lived certainly did. Its not that I'm opposed to the retranslation, as people have done the same with the bible because they do not like the masculine engendered God so it stands to reason philosophy would undergo similar changes but its just a stretch in changing the perception of history, to think women were included into the concept of being "the master" when they weren't even allowed to own property or hold any position in society other than a donkey or a child.

For women seeking to empower themselves, no doubt re-applying the wisdom of this philosophy will serve them well as it has for men for countless years. I can only hope it will be truly embraced.

Speaking of translations...here's one...

The Woman, by residing in the Tao,
sets an example for all beings.
Because she doesn't display herself,
people can see her light.
Because she has nothing to prove,
people can trust her words.
Because she doesn't know who she is,
people recognize themselves in her.
Because she has no goal in mind,
everything she does succeeds.

Translation by RJMasters, methodology adopted by Stephen Mitchell

 

[Netzach]

My interest in this is simply as someone who read it every day when she was too sick to get out of bed and took from it what I needed. I'm no student of Chinese history, and I think Mitchell foists too much Korean Zen off on it to even think of it as Taoist any longer. In Zen you have multiple examples of female masters, nuns, sages, and enlightened beings, so there's really not as much of a stretch. The gender of these people is not made an issue, really. Even if the society Zen grew out of was anything but egalitarian in its social structure.

Frankly, what's the big deal? Mitchell plays with pronouns, I pulled a male passage. That he does is probably the least interesting facet of the translation. The whole point of the excercise is that we're able to see ourselves in it outside of being beaten over the head with what genitals we have.

But what stuck with me are the traits I find I strive for myself, and the traits I find admirable in a man I want to be with, let alone any I'd consider following. I distrust people who don't distrust their ego and don't question themselves. I expect someone to know what he's doing because he may have tried a few things that DON'T work. The best minds embrace failure, cop to mistakes, and laugh at themselves, but also shine in moments of rightness and brilliance when they are in their element.

 

[RJMasters]

My interest in this is simply as someone who read it every day when she was too sick to get out of bed and took from it what I needed. I'm no student of Chinese history, and I think Mitchell foists too much Korean Zen off on it to even think of it as Taoist any longer. In Zen you have multiple examples of female masters, nuns, sages, and enlightened beings, so there's really not as much of a stretch. The gender of these people is not made an issue, really. Even if the society Zen grew out of was anything but egalitarian in its social structure.

Frankly, what's the big deal? Mitchell plays with pronouns, I pulled a male passage. That he does is probably the least interesting facet of the translation. The whole point of the excercise is that we're able to see ourselves in it outside of being beaten over the head with what genitals we have.

But what stuck with me are the traits I find I strive for myself, and the traits I find admirable in a man I want to be with, let alone any I'd consider following. I distrust people who don't distrust their ego and don't question themselves. I expect someone to know what he's doing because he may have tried a few things that DON'T work. The best minds embrace failure, cop to mistakes, and laugh at themselves, but also shine in moments of rightness and brilliance when they are in their element.

I tend to do better in one on one or smaller groups. ...I wasn't being cheeky, I was being straight up. Granted I don't like the pussyfooting around with swapping of genders in historical text so I did go out of my way to point that out but it would be nice if I could be taken at face value.

hmmmm

I was sincere in that if both men and women were to embrace the truth of that passage, then so much the better.

Let's try it again...

For both men and women seeking to empower themselves, no doubt applying the wisdom of this philosophy will serve them well as it has for many for countless years. I can only hope it will be truly embraced(and is something I could probably work on more myself).

Speaking of translations...here's one...

The Master, by residing in the Tao,
sets an example for all beings.
Because he/she doesn't display himself/herself,
people can see his/her light.
Because she/he has nothing to prove,
people can trust her/his words.
Because he/she doesn't know who he/she is,
people recognize themselves in him/her.
Because she/he has no goal in mind,
everything she/he does succeeds.
---------------------------------------------------

of course I don't like the last phrase of that...

Because she/he has no goal in mind,
everything she/he does succeeds

It sounds to much like....if you aim at nothing you will hit the target every time.

I don't mind goal setting as long as there is balance in the striving to obtain such goals.

 

[incubus_dark]

I'm not the expert on Tao, but I think the point might be that if it makes sense that a particular goal be arrived at, then one need only do all things natural to one's present task, with total concentration, and this will lead inevitably to that goal. Alternatively I suppose, 'if one isn't aiming at any goal, not achieving anything can't be construed as failure', is the popular western interpretation. This doesn't sit well with the fact that taoists had goals of sorts, but does provide a convenient blanket for any sort of indolence the purveyors of popular wisdom might wish to justify. I'm sure Netzach would have a more coherent opinion on this.

How do I navigate the male ego and the light/dark balance? Tricky...

When I was younger, I decided that since light and good didn't lead automatically to prosperity and adequate quantities of sexual satisfaction, I would intentionally explore dark and wicked. This was by and large relatively succesful, but consumed a large amount of effort and was similarly forced and unatural to my basic personality. With age and laziness, a balance was reached by which I need not exert myself, and having been brought up to light and having already investigated dark, this course causes me no qualms. By chance, so it seems, this path of least resistance is exactly in accord with my natural inclinations and so is both effortless and does not seem a force fitted persona to those experiencing it from the outside.

Similarly, when I was a boy, I had a noisy child ego. However, I noticed that by and large, other people were neither fooled or impressed by this. This awareness seems to be the key element lacking in those that never grow out of it. I looked at myself and thought, 'I do this, or say that, because I think people expect this, or admire that, and I suspect a lack in myself that I don't wish to be noticed by myself, or by others.' I came to the realisation that the noisy ego actually draws attention to any deficit in one's self, rather than mask it, while at the same time providing a crutch that prevented one from addressing any real flaws or defecits in one's self. That is to say, if some persons are even half as perceptive as I am, they can see streight through me, and it would be extremely conceited to assume that others are not at least that perceptive too.

I addressed this realisation by abandoning my inclination to allow full scope to the inner boy, and calmly admitting any fault other's might notice, whilst not concerning myself with their opinion; just getting on with things, so to speak. This innitially was not an easy thing, but only due to internal pressures. When one relaxes into it, it is in fact, the path of least resistance. Occasionally I still hear the squeakings of the inner boy within my mind, and think, 'how foolish the thoughts and fancies that one's brain evolves sometimes'. Actually, I think, 'bullshit', but that doesn't read so prettily.

If my noisy boy ego squeaks, I pay attention in so much as it is an excellent touchstone as to what I might currently fear, or perceive as deficits in myself, but is far cheaper and more rapid than therapy. I acknowledge it, but keep it to myself (more or less, usually). Still, perhaps sometimes I slip up and the child peeps through; it's no great matter either way.

 

[Netzach]

I'm not the expert on Tao, but I think the point might be that if it makes sense that a particular goal be arrived at, then one need only do all things natural to one's present task, with total concentration, and this will lead inevitably to that goal. Alternatively I suppose, 'if one isn't aiming at any goal, not achieving anything can't be construed as failure', is the popular western interpretation. This doesn't sit well with the fact that taoists had goals of sorts, but does provide a convenient blanket for any sort of indolence the purveyors of popular wisdom might wish to justify. I'm sure Netzach would have a more coherent opinion on this.

How do I navigate the male ego and the light/dark balance? Tricky...

When I was younger, I decided that since light and good didn't lead automatically to prosperity and adequate quantities of sexual satisfaction, I would intentionally explore dark and wicked. This was by and large relatively succesful, but consumed a large amount of effort and was similarly forced and unatural to my basic personality. With age and laziness, a balance was reached by which I need not exert myself, and having been brought up to light and having already investigated dark, this course causes me no qualms. By chance, so it seems, this path of least resistance is exactly in accord with my natural inclinations and so is both effortless and does not seem a force fitted persona to those experiencing it from the outside.

Similarly, when I was a boy, I had a noisy child ego. However, I noticed that by and large, other people were neither fooled or impressed by this. This awareness seems to be the key element lacking in those that never grow out of it. I looked at myself and thought, 'I do this, or say that, because I think people expect this, or admire that, and I suspect a lack in myself that I don't wish to be noticed by myself, or by others.' I came to the realisation that the noisy ego actually draws attention to any deficit in one's self, rather than mask it, while at the same time providing a crutch that prevented one from addressing any real flaws or defecits in one's self. That is to say, if some persons are even half as perceptive as I am, they can see streight through me, and it would be extremely conceited to assume that others are not at least that perceptive too.

I addressed this realisation by abandoning my inclination to allow full scope to the inner boy, and calmly admitting any fault other's might notice, whilst not concerning myself with their opinion; just getting on with things, so to speak. This innitially was not an easy thing, but only due to internal pressures. When one relaxes into it, it is in fact, the path of least resistance. Occasionally I still hear the squeakings of the inner boy within my mind, and think, 'how foolish the thoughts and fancies that one's brain evolves sometimes'. Actually, I think, 'bullshit', but that doesn't read so prettily.

If my noisy boy ego squeaks, I pay attention in so much as it is an excellent touchstone as to what I might currently fear, or perceive as deficits in myself, but is far cheaper and more rapid than therapy. I acknowledge it, but keep it to myself (more or less, usually). Still, perhaps sometimes I slip up and the child peeps through; it's no great matter either way.

Beautiful. Both the handling of yourself as you describe it, and the reading of the passage, I think.

I mean I don't think I could interpret that any differently or better. The "no goal" is not about aimlessness, in my interpretation, rather about a willingness to point oneself and go, flexible as to the byways that may eventually get you there, becoming more and more in tune with one's goal until you internalize it more fully, until it's intention more than destination.

Again, to be taken in context, as I threw it out in context. I'm sure other people find Dom/Master as I do a pretty insufferable twat. My notion of goal is very much informed by having a disease that may derail any and all plans at a moment's notice, and I needed to reconcile my life to that. Thank you little slim book. And thank you, Sir who showed up every Thursday like clockwork to read it to me and drink tea, when everyone said you'd never do something like that or be there for me.


This is a nice meaty chew of a discussion.

Do you ever do SM to let the little boy monster run amok? I do let my enfante terrible out. I freely admit that a lot of my scenes are about touching base with outlandish selfishness and megalomaniacal motors. But it's not what the relationships are based on.

 

[CutieMouse]

Can I quitely poke my head in and say I'm loving lurking in this thread?

 

[Puman]

Can I quitely poke my head in and say I'm loving lurking in this thread?

*whispers*
me too...

 

[incubus_dark]

I find many doms to be utterly insufferable twats. Largely because of the childish post pissing ego driven mouth thing, and the subsequent need to behave in accordance with their mouth, to forestall looking wholey foolish in their own mind's eye. It's not the selfishness or self indulgence, but the bombast and childishness.

I try not to be like that, though perhaps sometimes I am; hopefully only on brief occasions after one too many Ardbegs, though it's hard to tell.

It seems that many would be masters feel the need to appear masterly, but don't quite know how, and the noisy inner brat sallies forth to fill the breach.

All of those Doms that I have admired have been quiet, possessed of calm authority and otherwise congenial. They inspire respect by being worthy of it, and obedience by conveying a natural expectation of it. I would like to be like this, and I go about trying, by not trying to be anything. If the reflection of myself I see in others is anything to judge by, this appears at least partially successful.

If I let the little boy monster have free reign, it tends to be in the realm that one would expect of a little boy; I buy toys, grown up toys to be sure, but still toys. The wicked thing that enjoys the look of pain in the face of pretty girls, is by far a more grown up and darkesome beast. This creature I don't repress, and thus I'm a lifestyle dom. The self centredness that drives this, I see as different from the selfishness of the willful child, and perhaps verges closer towards that special solipsism that defines the universe of a sociopath. It differes from sociopathy in as much as I can empathise with those whom are victims to my fancies and fetishes, and derive an added pleasure from this too. In addition to this, I know that if I break my toys, I can't play with them again, and society's big mumma will attempt to punish me. I also realise that the darling sub that submits to me, does so of her own free will, and that this gift is worthy of care and consideration, and too, worthy of the return gift of pleasure and respect.

I try to fend of the inherent complexities of these things, by maintaining a simple outlook, and not censuring myself for what society would perceive as varying degrees of wickedness.

 

[RJMasters]

I'm not the expert on Tao, but I think the point might be that if it makes sense that a particular goal be arrived at, then one need only do all things natural to one's present task, with total concentration, and this will lead inevitably to that goal. Alternatively I suppose, 'if one isn't aiming at any goal, not achieving anything can't be construed as failure', is the popular western interpretation. This doesn't sit well with the fact that taoists had goals of sorts, but does provide a convenient blanket for any sort of indolence the purveyors of popular wisdom might wish to justify. I'm sure Netzach would have a more coherent opinion on this.

How do I navigate the male ego and the light/dark balance? Tricky...

When I was younger, I decided that since light and good didn't lead automatically to prosperity and adequate quantities of sexual satisfaction, I would intentionally explore dark and wicked. This was by and large relatively succesful, but consumed a large amount of effort and was similarly forced and unatural to my basic personality. With age and laziness, a balance was reached by which I need not exert myself, and having been brought up to light and having already investigated dark, this course causes me no qualms. By chance, so it seems, this path of least resistance is exactly in accord with my natural inclinations and so is both effortless and does not seem a force fitted persona to those experiencing it from the outside.

Similarly, when I was a boy, I had a noisy child ego. However, I noticed that by and large, other people were neither fooled or impressed by this. This awareness seems to be the key element lacking in those that never grow out of it. I looked at myself and thought, 'I do this, or say that, because I think people expect this, or admire that, and I suspect a lack in myself that I don't wish to be noticed by myself, or by others.' I came to the realisation that the noisy ego actually draws attention to any deficit in one's self, rather than mask it, while at the same time providing a crutch that prevented one from addressing any real flaws or defecits in one's self. That is to say, if some persons are even half as perceptive as I am, they can see streight through me, and it would be extremely conceited to assume that others are not at least that perceptive too.

I addressed this realisation by abandoning my inclination to allow full scope to the inner boy, and calmly admitting any fault other's might notice, whilst not concerning myself with their opinion; just getting on with things, so to speak. This innitially was not an easy thing, but only due to internal pressures. When one relaxes into it, it is in fact, the path of least resistance. Occasionally I still hear the squeakings of the inner boy within my mind, and think, 'how foolish the thoughts and fancies that one's brain evolves sometimes'. Actually, I think, 'bullshit', but that doesn't read so prettily.

If my noisy boy ego squeaks, I pay attention in so much as it is an excellent touchstone as to what I might currently fear, or perceive as deficits in myself, but is far cheaper and more rapid than therapy. I acknowledge it, but keep it to myself (more or less, usually). Still, perhaps sometimes I slip up and the child peeps through; it's no great matter either way.

Thank you for the insight on that, I understand or see that last part in a different way now.

As for the rest. you certainly are someone I could learn a lot from thank you for taking the time you did.

 

[incubus_dark]

In my current line of employment I work 14 days streight, and then take 7 off, so I periodically have time to spare. You're welcome to the bit I occasionally spend here.

I'm not comfortable with the role of teacher; it encourages me to become didactic, but if you find something to gain in a pleasant chat, then again, you're welcome.

And too, thank you for your kind opinion Netzach. I've often enjoyed your insights too.

 

[RJMasters]

I'm not one to get under foot and don't mind gleaning. In some ways I am a klepto when it come to stealing bits of wisdom here and there. I mull them around for a while and if they prove out I try to add them in and work on them. Regardless I like to credit the srouce where its due.

continuing the conversation at hand, here's a question I am curious about kind of a two parter. You mentioned that...

"All of those Doms that I have admired have been quiet, possessed of calm authority and otherwise congenial. They inspire respect by being worthy of it,"

I would be curious to know how these types of men handle injustice when...

its directed at them...

its directed at others around them...

in particular, does the noisy boy ego(NBE) come into play here at all?....it doesn't seem right that they wouldn't do anything. However, what seems like the right thing to do, which would be to take action(IMO), it is clear that any action that stands in opposition to injustice can be deemed or interpreted as coming from the NBE depending on your perspective or point of view.

I 'd be interested to know your thoughts on how these types of men(or yourself) face injustice when it confronts them and they cannot avoid it, or when they see it happening to others and if they intervene or not.

 

[Netzach]

The person I submit to works largely in a social justice capacity, helping a population that would be called "underserved" in the PC lingo "utterly fucked by the system" in lingua franca.

What this demands is an ability to be flexible, seamless, and political. To create an illusion of tongue-in-ass with the people you need things from while maintaining your autonomy and self-interest all the while. To lose a battle to win a war. Actually being beneficial to people who are not in a position of power in relation to you requires dropping ego, and serving their needs. Not what they want - because no one would ever need money or funding and magic fairies would pay my lover in that case - but what's needed.

As for how he handles slights, with humor and deflection, and self-effacement. As for how he handles actual threats - physical? - by breaking an arm if it's a literal physical attack which requires it. To livelihood and reputation? by forming alliances with people the other person has no idea he has alliance with and by employing the element of surprise, usually. Surprise requires noiselessness.

Needs-relevance is based on close listening and taking the person you're in charge of at face value. Which is something I try and model in my relationships.

My Ego demands shoe kissing in public, my understanding of my husband encompasses the recognition that I will have that from him only when and on the occasions that he feels safe to do so. I want to mold him into what he is, not what he's not. I suppose I could say that my ego is a non negotiable factor in this case, and if he doesn't want to do it every time he can leave.
My loss, in that case, not his.

Not having knee jerk emotional reactions when someone offends your ego isn't "not doing anything." It is definitely doing something. Any little bitch can make noise when you poke them. Choosing if and what noise you make is doing something, and deciding what effect you plan on it having. I have no doubt in my mind that any person who intended to harm me that he found out about would suffer because of him. Maybe not right at that second. Maybe later, when he's put me in touch with a really intimidating friend of his or three, or suddenly they find that people they thought they were down with are no longer speaking to them, or the MD is confronted with what he suggested I say to them. There is a serious protective urge and capacity.

I win arguments in school and I win arguments at work, and I win arguments in groups who know me passingly, because I frame my dissent humbly and personally whenever possible, and I avoid ad-hoc. Oh, the person who's being offensive never does come around, but the public opinion sure does galvanize.

I lose every argument I've ever had with my family because they provoke the emotions no one else can and I don't have courtesy or the usual human rules of engagement stopping me from knee-jerk stupidity. Every time.

 

[JMohegan]

I was raised to believe that there is no honor in victory unless the conflict constitutes a fair fight (either physical or verbal). Therefore, even when provoked and insulted, the honorable thing to do when faced with a significantly weaker opponent is to turn one's back and walk away.

With peers, I find proactive measures to be most useful. As a general rule, I behave in a way that is straightforward, not personally confrontational, fundamentally respectful, etc. This not only helps avoid conflict in general, but gives me the confidence, when challenged, that comes with the knowledge of treading on the higher road.

If I am criticized and the charge is fair, then I apologize and make whatever amends can be made. If I perceive the charge to be unfair, then I assume that the fault lies with the one doing the criticizing - who is either having a bad day and demonstrating a lapse in self-control, or posturing to gain points with a potential mate or the general crowd, or some other such thing. In which case, my disgust will be such that I'll usually do the same thing mentioned above. Just turn my back and walk away.

If I am engaged in heated verbal conflict, it will almost always be with someone whom I respect, who has also demonstrated respect for me. This makes the struggle for mutual understanding worthwhile, from my perspective.



With regard to the many injustices inherent in society as a whole, I fight these with my checkbook - providing sustained support for the ACLU, the Innocence Project, the local shelter for abused women, and whatnot.

 

[JMohegan]

All of those Doms that I have admired have been quiet, possessed of calm authority and otherwise congenial. They inspire respect by being worthy of it, and obedience by conveying a natural expectation of it.

Incubus dark, I don't believe I've had the pleasure. By way of introduction, I'll note that I refer to myself as a Dom for ease of reference in settings such as this one. However, I am not a Lifestyle practitioner in the late 20th century BDSM cultural sense.

I personally would not limit the list of Doms whom I respect to the quiet/calm authority type. I know a couple of guys who are boisterous and extremely entertaining - men with spectacular energy and senses of humor who are, nevertheless, fair as the day is long, fundamentally unpretentious, and unfailingly loyal to boot.

That aside, I agree with the quoted generalization.

 

[incubus_dark]

Justness, injustice, fairness, unfairness: These are slippery terms and mean differet things to different people. One only need consider the vast array of contradictory aphorisms on the topics. I suppose it depends on on what you mean by injustice at any particular time and case in point. I certainly wouldn't presume to know how others define it, let alone handle it, whether I admire them or not.

Something you view as injustice, I might view as natural selection. Commonly, if something directed at me seems like injustice, or unfairness, I consider it my own fault for letting events take that shape, and redress it calmly by whatever means seems apropriate at the time. I might give vent to vicious bouts of temper, but only in isolation. After all, it's considered unhealthy to repress an anger, is it not?

If something needs to be done, it can almost always be done more effectively from the stance of cold, calm reason, than via bursts of egotistical noise and breast beating, or so it seems to me. If a person doesn't get the hint that shaking their finger in my face whilst engaging in dispute, is both rude and unnecessarily aggressive, calmly reaching out and breaking the finger gives a more lasting, more personally satisfying lesson, than does joining the rant. As Netzach points out, if the issues are less immediate, more societal or organisational, then they are commonly more easily addressed by utilising that society or organisation. Still, each such is a case unto itself and there isn't much that can be said on the topic, that isn't a gross generalisation.



Hello JMohegan, I haven't met many Doms of that type, that I would consider a role model for myself, back when I still looked to others to help define myself. Largely, I suspect, because I'm inately not of that sort. This doesn't mean that I don't enjoy the company of those who are.

 

[JMohegan]

So true about pent-up anger.

In my experience, such emotions are often released very effectively on the courts and fields of competitive sports.

 

[RJMasters]

What this demands is an ability to be flexible, seamless, and political. To create an illusion of tongue-in-ass with the people you need things from while maintaining your autonomy and self-interest all the while. To lose a battle to win a war..........To livelihood and reputation? by forming alliances with people the other person has no idea he has alliance with and by employing the element of surprise, usually. Surprise requires noiselessness

An illusionary rim job eh? I have my version of this.

I don't agree that surprise requires noiselessness, diversions, confusion and mayhem tend to be pretty loud at times but still effective for misdirection. Its also is a way of flushing out agendas and secret alliances. Turning one's words around and applying them equally back upon the person who speaks them tends to work great for that. Pretty much a what's good for the goose and all that jive, simple but amazingly effective at exposing agenda based advice and double standards. If a person tells me someting, I will often turn it around and tell them the exact same thing just to watch their reaction.

As far as forming alliances and playing the puppet master behind the scenes pulling strings and taking someone by surprise....not a big fan of this, infact I find it to be dishonarable but understand its definately a popular manuver for some. This rarely if ever works on me, but its enjoyable to let others think its working. I think it was Columbo who mastered the art of letting others think they are being clever, so clever that they end up outsmarting themselves. Mixing a bit of Columbo with the philosophy of keeping your friends close but your enemies closer tends to work well for me.

My Ego demands shoe kissing in public, my understanding of my husband encompasses the recognition that I will have that from him only when and on the occasions that he feels safe to do so. I want to mold him into what he is, not what he's not. I suppose I could say that my ego is a non negotiable factor in this case, and if he doesn't want to do it every time he can leave.
My loss, in that case, not his.

Agreed

Not having knee jerk emotional reactions when someone offends your ego isn't "not doing anything." It is definitely doing something. Any little bitch can make noise when you poke them. Choosing if and what noise you make is doing something, and deciding what effect you plan on it having.

I have no doubt in my mind that any person who intended to harm me that he found out about would suffer because of him. Maybe not right at that second. Maybe later, when he's put me in touch with a really intimidating friend of his or three, or suddenly they find that people they thought they were down with are no longer speaking to them, or the MD is confronted with what he suggested I say to them. There is a serious protective urge and capacity.

This works great when someone is attacking and its nice to have those who will act on your behalf if such an occasion is needed, however I always tend to notice that when a person has this and they are in the one in the wrong, there is often a misuse of that. That's life, and if you have a personal army so goes the benefits of having such I suppose. But when it is misued, it amounts to little more than resorting to violence to settle differences. I am not so much opposed to that as long as I fight my own battles. My millitary training, and the martial art training has served me well in such situations even when outnumbered. I know I am capable of putting someone in the hospital, and the morgue if neccessary. I have never used my training to ever be physically agressive towards anyone, I learned from day one "such force" was to be use in self defense only.

I win arguments in school and I win arguments at work, and I win arguments in groups who know me passingly, because I frame my dissent humbly and personally whenever possible, and I avoid ad-hoc. Oh, the person who's being offensive never does come around, but the public opinion sure does galvanize.

I lose every argument I've ever had with my family because they provoke the emotions no one else can and I don't have courtesy or the usual human rules of engagement stopping me from knee-jerk stupidity. Every time.

It depends for me what my objective is. To win the people over or to win the argument or both. If displaying humility and being genuine can accomplish both, then so much the better. If not, then I have to decide whether its even worth it or not. If I determine it is worth it, public opinion ceases to be a concern.

I can't always claim that I enjoy the galvanized support of public opinion, but I can claim that those I respect and who's opinion really matter to me are galvanized in their opinion and support for me. When they begin to tell me...."Rich, I think your off base here..." That's when I will check myself hard and often after reconsideration realize that I was wrong in part or in whole and apologies are required on my part.

As to whether people respect me or not, "its not" something I can control. I have to live with myself and I am more concerned with whether I respect myself or not. I wouldn't make for a good politician because I am too blunt. That doesn't make me always right, but it does mean you know exactly where I stand on something.

 

[JMohegan]

I have a deep-seated distrust of those who write in a deliberately obfuscatory way. The Tao Te Ching is a perfect example of text that makes me instantly suspicious of the character and intent of the author.

I also have a profound distrust of those who operate through Machiavellian maneuvers.

But to be honest, I must admit that part of my distrust stems from the fact that I am wary of that which I do not understand, or can not predict with reasonably consistent accuracy. I am a straightforward kind of a guy who trusts the laws of Physics and Mathematics, that which is tangible and verifiable, that which can be learned and consistently relied upon, and that which holds up to the light of day.

 

[northwoods_sub]

lil' subbie pokes head in

I just have to tell all of You that I have found this thread highly stimulating. Intellectually of course.

(lil' subbie sneaks back out)

 

[Netzach]

I have a deep-seated distrust of those who write in a deliberately obfuscatory way. The Tao Te Ching is a perfect example of text that makes me instantly suspicious of the character and intent of the author.

I also have a profound distrust of those who operate through Machiavellian maneuvers.

But to be honest, I must admit that part of my distrust stems from the fact that I am wary of that which I do not understand, or can not predict with reasonably consistent accuracy. I am a straightforward kind of a guy who trusts the laws of Physics and Mathematics, that which is tangible and verifiable, that which can be learned and consistently relied upon, and that which holds up to the light of day.

Dude! Quantum? Einstein, in my book HAD to be Jewish. God in numbers. Talk about obfuscation.

I'm going to retype something I already wrote out today privately because I just think I'm so damn cool, to return to the topic:

Male Ego is a synonym for Human Insecurity, recast as all butch and manly to make it sound cooler. Discuss.

 

[JMohegan]

Dude! Quantum? Einstein, in my book HAD to be Jewish. God in numbers. Talk about obfuscation.

Ha, ha, ha!! Okay, okay, how about this. One person's obfuscation is another person's "yes, of course!"

Better?

And now, just to balance the thread from that blather in post 626....

"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery -- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man... I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence -- as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."

- Albert Einstein, The World As I See It, 1931.

 

[RJMasters]

Male Ego is a synonym for Human Insecurity, recast as all butch and manly to make it sound cooler. Discuss.

I can see why you say that. Amusingly enough because I don't believe that women's ego is a synonym for human insecurity, reverse logic makes its clear to me that, that statement even though could be true, it certainly doesn't encompass the whole. I think however this cuts right to the heart of the matter of why I wanted to discuss this to begin with.

I think your statement is what is the generally accepted or even the prefered way of looking at the male ego.

I found this blog and read it...

"Male ego is a term that is frequently used in common speech as well as in the realms of psychiatry. It is used to refer to the attitude and behavior of a person who has an exaggerated opinion of his capabilities and importance. Such a person is primarily perceived to be a pompous and conceited person who tries to assert his importance in various ways usually in the presence of women. This sort of behavior is more often than not observed in men rather than women and hence is referred to as the male ego.

A male ego is often associated with a poor opinion of oneself in comparison with others and is believed to stem from an inherent complex which may alternate between feelings of superiority and inferiority resulting in the desire to impress others. The male ego manifests itself in various ways primarily related to one's accomplishments in life."

After reading it, it dawns on me that this is really what many people actually think the male ego is. The idea of less is more seems to be the standing order of the day. However it struck me as I was thinking on this, is that ego is neither good or bad, what makes it one or the other is what drives a person's ego.

I think that is why it can be both the Achilles Heel and the Atlas of a man or woman for that matter. I think the male ego can be a synonym for Human Insecurity, recast as all butch and manly to make it sound cooler, but I also think it can be a synonym for Human Greatness depending on what is motivating the ego of a man.

In someways its hard to explain, but I want to say that "sense of purpose" is key to a healthy expression of a man's ego. Women and men alike need purpose in life, as it goes to how we value ourselves and is ultimately what gives meaning to life. This has a temendious impact on self confidence and self esteem. When a man doesn't have a sense of purpose or of being needed and useful, they feel useless, unwanted and unloved. The very thing which empowers them and makes them feel strong, masculine, and potent no longer counts or is valued.

When it comes to personal responsibility, it is in the reach and capacity for every man to use his "will" to choose what will motivate his ego and in this way gives himself his own sense of purpose. Regardless of whether society deems the male ego as nothing but a hallow bravado or useless, this is no excuse for the male ego which is motivated by insecurities to get a free pass. Believe me I know.

My advice to any female submissives out there reading this, would be to note this about a male's ego, in that as you find security and feel loved in the "genuine" acknowledgement of your thoughts and feelings, so too many men find strength, security, and feel loved when their ego is genuinely acknowledged. If you ever wondered if there was one thing you can do in order to serve or please your man, I would say it has a lot to do with simple appreciation of his masculinity and let him know it in a way that works best between you two.

As for advice to men, don't let your ego be driven by your insecurities and choose things that will lend to a self confident expression of your ego and masculinity. In doing so I add the additional peice of advice from a revered philosopher who was known not only for his deep thoughts but for his common sense as well.


"In philosophy, especially that of Aristotle, the golden mean is the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency."

Where a man let's his ego become deficeint or excessive, usually means he's missing the mark.

 

[JMohegan]

I found this blog and read it...

"Male ego is a term that is frequently used in common speech as well as in the realms of psychiatry. It is used to refer to the attitude and behavior of a person who has an exaggerated opinion of his capabilities and importance. Such a person is primarily perceived to be a pompous and conceited person who tries to assert his importance in various ways usually in the presence of women. This sort of behavior is more often than not observed in men rather than women and hence is referred to as the male ego.

A male ego is often associated with a poor opinion of oneself in comparison with others and is believed to stem from an inherent complex which may alternate between feelings of superiority and inferiority resulting in the desire to impress others. The male ego manifests itself in various ways primarily related to one's accomplishments in life."

I have no idea what goes on in the "realms of psychiatry."

With reference to the popular vernacular, though, I largely agree.

My advice to any female submissives out there reading this, would be to note this about a male's ego, in that as you find security and feel loved in the "genuine" acknowledgement of your thoughts and feelings, so too many men find strength, security, and feel loved when their ego is genuinely acknowledged. If you ever wondered if there was one thing you can do in order to serve or please your man, I would say it has a lot to do with simple appreciation of his masculinity and let him know it in a way that works best between you two.

Gender references aside, RJ, your advice is well-taken for any person in a relationship of any flavor. There is no adequate substitute for genuine appreciation of another human being.

However, a significant portion of the Mdom/femsub world embraces a culture in which stroking the male (in both a literal and figurative sense) is not only encouraged and celebrated, but outright mandated as well. Kiss my feet, suck my cock, make my coffee, call me Sir, call my friends Sir, kneel when I give the word and don't rise till I say so, etc., etc., etc.

Which raises the following questions in my mind.

Does all of this codified genuflecting say something about the relative insecurities of those who embrace D/s?

If genuine appreciation works for everybody, why employ honorifics and whatnot?

What does this say about the stroker, and what does it say about the strokee?