The Dom Lounge

[RJMasters]

It means we color outside of the lines?

 

[RJMasters]

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.

Ty for your response on this. It makes sense.

 

[JMohegan]

It means we color outside of the lines?

Ha! As dodges go, that was kinda cute.

 

[Netzach]

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

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

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?

Motives are so varied.

Anyone who says there's NO insecurity that motivates 'em to do this stuff is a big liar liar pants on fire. I've never talked to anyone in the scene without "issues." (These issues often pale in comparison to the issues of a lot of people OUTSIDE it, however, so saying we're all damaged is not the point)

I like my puppet universe. I like the visuals, the auditory. I like the willingness of my guys to shed something as valuable and as carefully patrolled as their normal boundary to kiss my boot - Bull included.

I just don't feel as accepted and as adored and as loved by someone who won't do those things as by someone who wil, stupid as it all may be. And you know, I think it's pretty silly, seriously. It's all pretty sillly when you step back. That's OK.

I don't feel less desire to surrender to him because I know he would and will to me, but more. Clearly I'm not wired like most, though. This isn't in the "ooo aren't I special" sense, it's said more with the dismay of someone who feels perpetually on some other planet.

The difference with my husband and even more so, my slave, is that he's exclusively submissive.So it's an impossibility based on what we are, period, it's like trying to make tea out of coffee and a teabag to think about me flipping, seriously. So no big deal, I don't, don't need to.

Why do I put my ass in the air and kiss the backs of my Bull's hands, etc? I think mostly it says that vaguely esoteric things give him a hard on. I think it's pretty shallow, like when I get on my knees in a pink girdle the edge of my thigh halfmoons out more in a really delicious way. Shallow rocks! I like the way that looks and feels, too, and if it puts a hard on in his pants, yay.

I think male ego has nothing on male visual stimulation.

Knowing him as I do, I would argue that's at least 50 percent of it. Also I know that the above behaviors are, partly, an indulgence on his part of what gets me going, too - they're mutual touchstones. They're keys, they're not ends in themselves. I mean, I think he likes getting blown as much as the next guy, I think he feels warm and adored when I drop to my knees, I think he really cares most about the sense that I make myself available, transparent, and attentive to him out of utter confidence in him and plain old adoration.

Have to reiterate, though, we're both horses of a different color - he likes a lot of things, sexually, but I know from years of conversation and looking at porn together and email and whatnot, that until recently, very little male Dom, biological girl sub material really did anything for him, and it didn't factor into his fantasy life. Which makes him very much my counterpart, as male Dom bio femsub stuff was never part of my fantasy life either in a significant proportion. It's the who, it's not the what, in this case. It's taking a trip together, it's not finding someone to travel with because you have a ticket and an itch to go.

I think the motives of someone like me as a Domme, who's ALWAYS fixated on those visual/symbolic/gestural things are more complex and more interesting in a lot of ways. Yeah, there's some insecurity fueling it, there's some weird motor that craves evidence

Show Mommy how much you love her, do it for Mommy, don't you love Mommy?

I've always maintained that if I wanted picture perfect mental health I would not have so much damn fun.

 

[JMohegan]

Motives are so varied.

Anyone who says there's NO insecurity that motivates 'em to do this stuff is a big liar liar pants on fire. I've never talked to anyone in the scene without "issues." (These issues often pale in comparison to the issues of a lot of people OUTSIDE it, however, so saying we're all damaged is not the point)

I agree with all of that.

I just don't feel as accepted and as adored and as loved by someone who won't do those things as by someone who wil, stupid as it all may be. And you know, I think it's pretty silly, seriously. It's all pretty sillly when you step back. That's OK.

I suppose I agree with this too, though it's hard for me to ascribe the word "silly" to a process that gets one's rocks off so spectacularly.

Mostly I would say that all the codified genuflecting simply creates or enhances an illusion of power and strength. This illusion is both erotic and comforting, for as long as it lasts.

 

[RJMasters]

When I said this....

"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."

I think this was exactly what I was talking about when you said.....

"I think he really cares most about the sense that I make myself available, transparent, and attentive to him out of utter confidence in him and plain old adoration."



As far as....

"I think male ego has nothing on male visual stimulation. "

Doting on my masculinity has some value but gets old and boring pretty quick, I like it more when a woman knows how to offer herself in such a way "which calls forth the masculine" within me rather than just admire it.

- straight forward transparency in the showing of lust, need, want of me.

This results in wild monkey sex of me tarzan you jane and will likely get you bent over roughly the nearest table or pinned and fucked savagedly against the nearest wall. Simply whispering in my ear..."wanna fuck" is likely to set off these kind of buttons, or simply being naked and kneeling when I walk in the door and exclaim thank gawd your home I have been thinking about your cock all day kind of thing.

- a showing of genuine coyish/lust

I don't know why I like it, but I love to make a woman blush. Its ok if she is totally comfortable with her sexuality and even if she is partly slutty, but when I put my finger on her sexual pulse I like to feel the tinge of shame which makes her panties moist. For me its the reverse equivalant of a woman giving a man a boner.

- Addictive mannerisms

Probably one of the only things I like about cats is when they rub themselves against you and you can just see the immense pleasure and satisfaction they feel while doing it. Translation, I love being the source. I like it when she can draw strength and comfort from just being with me. When a hug or a touch from me conveys my approval and affection that results in her world now being ok. I like the constant feel of finger tips on my skin as if it conveys in an unspoken way that she wants to touch, needs to touch me.

- Seeks my help physically or my mental perspective

She likes to ask for my help even though she is capable of getting through on her own.



When I was younger the visual played a much larger role in stimulation, as I have gotten older, though I still enjoy the visual stimulation, my mental boner is required to arouse my passions. I could easily shower in a shower room that was uni-sex and be completely surrounded by naked women not really think that much about it(nudist mentality maybe coming through? idk), but were one of those women to drop to her knees right then and there with either her head bowed with quiet expectation or with looking up at me with need, I would immediately get hard.

I think this is also why regular porn just doesn't have the same effect on me as it once did. For me there has to be some element which I can identify with for it to grab my attention.

 

[Netzach]

When I said this....

"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."

I think this was exactly what I was talking about when you said.....

"I think he really cares most about the sense that I make myself available, transparent, and attentive to him out of utter confidence in him and plain old adoration."

Guess so. I think the disconnect for me is that this isn't in relation to his masculinity, or if it is it's also in relation to his killer smile and his bad leg and his blondness. You see what I mean? Maybe if "person with a dick" is a requisite aspect of your partner or your Dominant, it does come into play way more. I'm not sure. I just have no problem being his kitten, so it all works. I'm just still feeling the disconnect though. He can get a ton of pussy, too, and girls with dicks who have more femininity than I will *ever* cultivate - if his appreciation of my femininity were what kept him going back for more I'd be seriously unnerved 'cause some T girl is going to sweep me under the rug.

It's something else.

What I mean by transparency isn't necessarily of the lust variety. I've never had problems or shame in iterating how much I want to fuck him or anyone else, really. It's more transparency of the intense emotional variety and mental variety, where I simply am not *allowed* to hide the parts that bother me perplex me, or are really new and cool to me, which is much harder.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I can´t say what I do and desire to do is fuelled by insecurity, simply because I know it isn´t. If I hadn´t reached the point in life whereby I had gone through some fairly incredible and for some, impossible to survive whole situations and come out the other side, I would not have the security to surrender myself to the life I have. It is the complete opposite to the life I lived as mainstream, both in terms of control and gender interaction, but at the end of the day it was and is my choice to live it knowing I do not have to live this way to cope with life...quite the opposite. I also think a lot of my D/s is more about honour than simply power and control ego driven D/s and I suspect F would also feel much the same.

It actually crossed my mind a lot this week as I have been watching a lot of history and documentaries about Eastern cultures, India in particular. I thought of how often people feel TPE is fantasy, not possible to live, and yet when you look at history and various cultures, it is quite normal for such devotion and dedication to exist between husband and wife. It is not unheard of for a wife to kill herself on her husband´s funeral pyre, and not always because there is no other choice. Various cultures throughout time have had similar customs and contrary to our westernised belief that a person who is sane cannot obey to such an extent, the proof it is possible and real exists. Why should it be so unbelievable a pyl could and would live in similar dedication, and that their PYL would expect it?

Catalina

 

[Netzach]

I can´t say what I do and desire to do is fuelled by insecurity, simply because I know it isn´t. If I hadn´t reached the point in life whereby I had gone through some fairly incredible and for some, impossible to survive whole situations and come out the other side, I would not have the security to surrender myself to the life I have. It is the complete opposite to the life I lived as mainstream, both in terms of control and gender interaction, but at the end of the day it was and is my choice to live it knowing I do not have to live this way to cope with life...quite the opposite. I also think a lot of my D/s is more about honour than simply power and control ego driven D/s and I suspect F would also feel much the same.

It actually crossed my mind a lot this week as I have been watching a lot of history and documentaries about Eastern cultures, India in particular. I thought of how often people feel TPE is fantasy, not possible to live, and yet when you look at history and various cultures, it is quite normal for such devotion and dedication to exist between husband and wife. It is not unheard of for a wife to kill herself on her husband´s funeral pyre, and not always because there is no other choice. Various cultures throughout time have had similar customs and contrary to our westernised belief that a person who is sane cannot obey to such an extent, the proof it is possible and real exists. Why should it be so unbelievable a pyl could and would live in similar dedication, and that their PYL would expect it?

Catalina

I think there's such a difference between being in a culture where one is raised to obey and think collectively versus one where one isn't (this one) that comparisons like that kind of go out the window. I feel that the whole nature of relationships like yours and mine is that they're oppositional, culturally, and to whatever you've been *taught* is correct. And it doesn't matter which way you show up on the D/s diagram - whenever you go outside the idea of an individial entirely self reliant, you are fucking with the status quo in the west. A woman in India who does commit suttee (and there have only been 47 reported cases since Independence) is going with the pull of cultural values, obviously not recent ones there, either. India is so un-monolithic anyway that it's impossible to generalize.

She would be considered extreme, whereas you, my friend, and I for all the opposite reasons, are considered insane.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I think there's such a difference between being in a culture where one is raised to obey and think collectively versus one where one isn't (this one) that comparisons like that kind of go out the window. I feel that the whole nature of relationships like yours and mine is that they're oppositional, culturally, and to whatever you've been *taught* is correct. And it doesn't matter which way you show up on the D/s diagram - whenever you go outside the idea of an individial entirely self reliant, you are fucking with the status quo in the west. A woman in India who does commit suttee (and there have only been 47 reported cases since Independence) is going with the pull of cultural values, obviously not recent ones there, either. India is so un-monolithic anyway that it's impossible to generalize.

She would be considered extreme, whereas you, my friend, and I for all the opposite reasons, are considered insane.

Partly true, but then I am also the product of a different generation where initially in early life before major feminist messages were heard and adhered to, it was normal for the wife to stay home (when I was a child it was still legal in some places where we lived to prevent a woman working once she married), for some it was considered equal to being a trollop to remarry if your husband died, and divorce was something only very bad people did. It has been interesting getting to a place in time when I can look back on living in both times and experienced the ´rightness´of both times in their time.

Though I moved on to be what some considered an over the top feminist who didn´t mind telling men she didn´t need them to rescue, direct or control her or her life, I have lived in both times and absorbed from both mindsets. Add to that I also was in a place where Asian culture was closer to our shores than Anglo, and I find myself very more driven by honour, just not in a gender sense, than anything else and it seems more natura to follow those lines. LOL, even as an outspoken feminist, I could never bring myself to shout, yell and drop my manners when explaining my POV. It si true though as you say, most consider what we do as insane when it goes into areas of TPE, but then many find the most normal of things insane because they do not understand and/or admire it personally.

Catalina

 

[Netzach]

Partly true, but then I am also the product of a different generation where initially in early life before major feminist messages were heard and adhered to, it was normal for the wife to stay home (when I was a child it was still legal in some places where we lived to prevent a woman working once she married), for some it was considered equal to being a trollop to remarry if your husband died, and divorce was something only very bad people did. It has been interesting getting to a place in time when I can look back on living in both times and experienced the ´rightness´of both times in their time.

Though I moved on to be what some considered an over the top feminist who didn´t mind telling men she didn´t need them to rescue, direct or control her or her life, I have lived in both times and absorbed from both mindsets. Add to that I also was in a place where Asian culture was closer to our shores than Anglo, and I find myself very more driven by honour, just not in a gender sense, than anything else and it seems more natura to follow those lines. LOL, even as an outspoken feminist, I could never bring myself to shout, yell and drop my manners when explaining my POV. It si true though as you say, most consider what we do as insane when it goes into areas of TPE, but then many find the most normal of things insane because they do not understand and/or admire it personally.

Catalina

Yeah, I can see how this is also generationally specific, as the traditional messages about what girls should be and expect reached me in a very dilute form by the late 70's.

I also think there's a lot to be said for having a specific man chosen by you for specific reasons to control your life etc. versus men in general, or whatever man gets assigned to you by your parents - it's a distinction worth considering. Your filtration process was especially rigorous, it seems to me.

We're getting on a tangent, but suffice it to say I think your perspective of someone coming into submission from a place of security rather than insecurity is really valid. As a D I almost don't know what to do with subs like you, because I do derive so much fun with H from the fact that he's always a little bit insecure about his predilections. Not a lot. Like 2 percent. But it's a significant 2 percent on which good headgames can rest.

 

[JMohegan]

When I said this....

"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."

I think this was exactly what I was talking about when you said.....

"I think he really cares most about the sense that I make myself available, transparent, and attentive to him out of utter confidence in him and plain old adoration."



As far as....

"I think male ego has nothing on male visual stimulation. "

Doting on my masculinity has some value but gets old and boring pretty quick, I like it more when a woman knows how to offer herself in such a way "which calls forth the masculine" within me rather than just admire it.

RJ, I am curious to know how you define "masculinity" in this context.

When I read the original post, I assumed you were using the word as a short-hand reference to the sexuality, character, and personality that makes up RJ - and since RJ is guy, you just simplified and used that single term.

Did you have a more universal meaning in mind, or was my original assumption correct?

- straight forward transparency in the showing of lust, need, want of me.

This results in wild monkey sex of me tarzan you jane and will likely get you bent over roughly the nearest table or pinned and fucked savagedly against the nearest wall. Simply whispering in my ear..."wanna fuck" is likely to set off these kind of buttons, or simply being naked and kneeling when I walk in the door and exclaim thank gawd your home I have been thinking about your cock all day kind of thing.

- a showing of genuine coyish/lust

I don't know why I like it, but I love to make a woman blush. Its ok if she is totally comfortable with her sexuality and even if she is partly slutty, but when I put my finger on her sexual pulse I like to feel the tinge of shame which makes her panties moist. For me its the reverse equivalant of a woman giving a man a boner.

- Addictive mannerisms

Probably one of the only things I like about cats is when they rub themselves against you and you can just see the immense pleasure and satisfaction they feel while doing it. Translation, I love being the source. I like it when she can draw strength and comfort from just being with me. When a hug or a touch from me conveys my approval and affection that results in her world now being ok. I like the constant feel of finger tips on my skin as if it conveys in an unspoken way that she wants to touch, needs to touch me.

- Seeks my help physically or my mental perspective

She likes to ask for my help even though she is capable of getting through on her own.

You know, through work and other venues I have met quite a few men, married for 20+ years, who mock or speak ill of their wives, especially when "joking" about their sexual worth. Where there is an obvious undercurrent of truth to the remarks, I have no respect for that sort of thing.

It's great to see you speaking with such obvious appreciation and affection for your wife, RJ. I'm happy for you, man. I really am.

 

[saw_man1]

You know, through work and other venues I have met quite a few men, married for 20+ years, who mock or speak ill of their wives, especially when "joking" about their sexual worth. Where there is an obvious undercurrent of truth to the remarks, I have no respect for that sort of thing.

Nor I. There is an epidemic of this in most of the circles I find myself in. At the very least, this attitude is counter productive. Unfortunately I lack the restraint I should have and all to often find myself in heated discussions with said men.

 

[JMohegan]

Nor I. There is an epidemic of this in most of the circles I find myself in. At the very least, this attitude is counter productive. Unfortunately I lack the restraint I should have and all to often find myself in heated discussions with said men.

Do the discussions usually bear fruit?

 

[RJMasters]

Do the discussions usually bear fruit?

I don't know but the visual of Nick the construction worker falling to the ground screaming in pain as he gives birth to a pineapple is quite halarious.

 

[RJMasters]

RJ, I am curious to know how you define "masculinity" in this context.

When I read the original post, I assumed you were using the word as a short-hand reference to the sexuality, character, and personality that makes up RJ - and since RJ is guy, you just simplified and used that single term.

Did you have a more universal meaning in mind, or was my original assumption correct?

You know, through work and other venues I have met quite a few men, married for 20+ years, who mock or speak ill of their wives, especially when "joking" about their sexual worth. Where there is an obvious undercurrent of truth to the remarks, I have no respect for that sort of thing.

It's great to see you speaking with such obvious appreciation and affection for your wife, RJ. I'm happy for you, man. I really am.

Yeah I was. I think Netz made a good point in that it wasn't same same. And that is true in that masculinity probably has an accepted sterotypical definition, but it probably more real that each individual has their own brand of masculinity. I think that is why I added into my comments that statement...

"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".



The sexuality, character, and personality that makes up a man is gonna change and be different for each. Masculinity is the essence of man. I had to come to grips that masculinity isn't just the macho bravado of the male ego, and in part when I figured out that people try to frame masculinity in only those terms, its like one, two, three your out...kind of discussion. I think I slide back and forth sometime between male ego and masculinity because I see them as interwoven together. Usually what is reflective of one is almost always reflective of the other.

Some have said self confidence is a trait of the male ego which is admired. I would say then that a male who had self confidence was displaying a part of his particular brand of masculinity as well. I 'm not dogmatic though, more like generally held views along these lines. I am sure there are exceptions and such.

 

[RJMasters]

I think umpires have a Domly profession.

​

 

[JMohegan]

I think umpires have a Domly profession.

Fucking sadists! I hate the bastards.

The sexuality, character, and personality that makes up a man is gonna change and be different for each. Masculinity is the essence of man. I had to come to grips that masculinity isn't just the macho bravado of the male ego, and in part when I figured out that people try to frame masculinity in only those terms, its like one, two, three your out...kind of discussion. I think I slide back and forth sometime between male ego and masculinity because I see them as interwoven together. Usually what is reflective of one is almost always reflective of the other.

Some have said self confidence is a trait of the male ego which is admired. I would say then that a male who had self confidence was displaying a part of his particular brand of masculinity as well. I 'm not dogmatic though, more like generally held views along these lines. I am sure there are exceptions and such.

My sister and I had an interesting discussion recently, about the language parents use when teaching children how to behave. In reminiscing, we were struck by the marked difference in the way she and I were admonished as kids.

"A man of honor does not ______" vs. "Nice girls don't _____."

At the core of each phrase, the intent is the same - an effort to teach us to treat others well. And yet, the implict messages were starkly different.

From this and a thousand other not-so-subtle clues in childhood, I formed an image of "masculine" as that which is strong, protective, valiant, resolute, stalwart, bold, and tough. In contrast, the "feminine" would be gentle, soft, comforting, nurturing, and always, unfailingly, kind.

Intellectually, I recognize the limitations and fallacies of these distinctions. And yet, in all honesty I must admit that they do constitute a powerful force in determining my own self-perception and personal goals, as well as my sexual preferences and criteria when choosing a mate.

 

[Netzach]

Fucking sadists! I hate the bastards.

My sister and I had an interesting discussion recently, about the language parents use when teaching children how to behave. In reminiscing, we were struck by the marked difference in the way she and I were admonished as kids.

"A man of honor does not ______" vs. "Nice girls don't _____."

At the core of each phrase, the intent is the same - an effort to teach us to treat others well. And yet, the implict messages were starkly different.

From this and a thousand other not-so-subtle clues in childhood, I formed an image of "masculine" as that which is strong, protective, valiant, resolute, stalwart, bold, and tough. In contrast, the "feminine" would be gentle, soft, comforting, nurturing, and always, unfailingly, kind.

Intellectually, I recognize the limitations and fallacies of these distinctions. And yet, in all honesty I must admit that they do constitute a powerful force in determining my own self-perception and personal goals, as well as my sexual preferences and criteria when choosing a mate.

I am clearly the product of the seventies and of an all-female household. I guess I know what nice girls are supposed to do, but I have no clue what men of honor are supposed to do. Grandpa worked really hard, and that was good. I was supposed to work really hard too, though, apparently. Men of honor were clearly not the horrible putzes my mother was dating, that's the only lesson I took with me, and doing whatever she and my aunt would not has served me really well when it came to finding men, which is basically not being a total dishrag bending in whatever breeze and pretending to be whatever he likes and trying to keep him without really even being sure why you wanna keep him.

However, if you guys are going to go after tail under 40 you are going to have to deal with people with similar worldview, I will bet. Definitely "nice girls don't..." but also "don't be a putz, go stand UP for yourself!" and of course "you can do anything you want - please go be a lawyer when you grow up."


And...

I agree with umpires, however they're always being assaulted with dissent and sometimes punches. Not how I run MY zoo.

Seriously. A lot of people in my peer group are into our jobs, into our own status willing to be really really UNkind because sometimes life demands that of you, and basically want guys who are with that program and have "their own lives." It's getting even more so.

H tells me about his 16 year old daughter dumping her boyfriend because he's "too needy." This would NEVER happen in my world and I doubt even more in yours.

Don't you guys think that a lot, not all but a LOT - of submissive women are going to be similarly SOCIALLY oriented, with the difference being they may like to be told what to do and bossed around either 1. in bed or 2. by one person. One person who's going to be desireable based on the same social values - successful (not materially maybe, but in his endeavors - you can "be in a band" but that means you are touring and you have CD's cut) independent (happy to see me but not moping by the phone) and communicative (I find that my girlfriends get really frustrated with men who don't communicate in a more traditionally "female" fashion - there's one guy in my social circle, who's an ABSOLUTE sweetheart and really cool, and I've always thought he needs a tomboyish, boyish girlfriend. He had one at one point and it was his longest rel. The other friends of mine who have dated him have all eventually wanted him to talk about emotions and feelings and it's NOT forthcoming. His continued presence and enjoyment of dissecting machinery and ideas with you IS love.)


I honestly see the whole "a good man" as irrelevant among my peer group, likewise "a nice guy" basically means passive-aggressive manipulator. People pair off pretty organically, the couples that stick do so because there's common ground more often than not. More people I know are looking for people to be economic forces *with* so there's enough stashed so someone can be home if they decide to have babies, not someone who's going to be "a provider." So that stalwart, gritty, stable thing is less important than it used to be, I think, to a lot of people.

 

[saw_man1]

Do the discussions usually bear fruit?

Rarely. Usually emotions take over, testosterone kicks in, and common sense flies out the window.

 

[JMohegan]

I am clearly the product of the seventies and of an all-female household. I guess I know what nice girls are supposed to do, but I have no clue what men of honor are supposed to do. Grandpa worked really hard, and that was good. I was supposed to work really hard too, though, apparently.

Honor is similar to nice - but with more personal power and responsibility.

Consider the "do unto others" maxim. My sister was taught to be pleasant, but I was taught to be fair.

However, if you guys are going to go after tail under 40 you are going to have to deal with people with similar worldview, I will bet. Definitely "nice girls don't..." but also "don't be a putz, go stand UP for yourself!" and of course "you can do anything you want - please go be a lawyer when you grow up."

My sister was given all three of those messages, although the one in the middle might be better phrased as, "stand up for yourself - firmly and with dignity, but graciously, of course."

We were born at the end of the 50's. As the Woman's Movement gained momentum, my parents heartily embraced it from an academic and economic point of view. This was true for both of them, but especially for my Dad. My sister is not a lawyer, but she does have a graduate degree.

And...

I agree with umpires, however they're always being assaulted with dissent and sometimes punches. Not how I run MY zoo.

Ha ha - When playing the game as a kid, I never got mouthy or punched anybody, but I did hear, "Watch the way you're lookin' at me, son!" - more than a few times.

So that stalwart, gritty, stable thing is less important than it used to be, I think, to a lot of people.

If I'm an anachronism, then so be it.

I'll start worrying about this if & when I ever have trouble finding a mate.


ETA - You know, I'm chuckling as I think about your prediction of the demise of the Man of Honor, remembering conversations between my parents back in the late 60's.

In the midst of the Vietnam War, counterculture, etc., they often predicted the very same thing.

 

[JMohegan]

Rarely. Usually emotions take over, testosterone kicks in, and common sense flies out the window.

The obvious follow-up question follows.......

Then why do you engage?

 

[saw_man1]

The obvious follow-up question follows.......

Then why do you engage?

It starts with indignation at what I see and is fueled by my lack of self control.

 

[JMohegan]

It starts with indignation at what I see and is fueled by my lack of self control.

For god's sake, man! Please consider the importance of popular Dom mythology, and keep this sort of thing to yourself!

 

[Netzach]

Graciousness and kindness were not demonstrated often nor upheld as important in my family. I'm actually rather pleased about this, I find that a lot of women are stymied by trying to make people feel good who really aren't invested in them one way or the other, or even make "other people" who don't even exist outside their imaginations happy.

I'll save the effort for where it matters.