The Doormat Discussion

[JMohegan]

*shrug* You used a terminology based argument, so I was looking at the terminology. I'm not precisely sure where the reference is needed, especially when, as has been stated in this very thread, she was still in the process of figuring things out. You may well be "done", I guess, but most people are works in progress.

And the lack of self-sufficiency that was the primary thrust of that thread was a matter of choice. "Won't", not "can't".



I'm not sure I understand this. Can you elaborate?

I'm not presenting an argument; I'm trying to understand what BiBunny is saying.

1st thing I don't understand: She keeps comparing herself to osg, and I don't see the two as similar in the slightest, especially when it comes to general social interaction. Not on this board, and not in their descriptions of interactions with people at large.

How the heck she gets from the capacity for leading people around by the ears & bending them to her will when necessary, to ID as a doormat, is what I don't get. Why is BiBunny labeling herself that way? That's what I'm asking.

2nd thing I don't understand: Her critique of the BDSM "community." She seems to be asking for compassion and less criticism for her behaviors, but I don't see her extending the same compassion to others - on multiple topics and with regard to multiple behaviors. It seems to me that she's criticizing people for being judgmental, when she herself is frequently, openly, and forcefully judgmental herself. Why are some types of behaviors indicative of people who should "jump off a cliff for the good of all humanity" - and other types of behaviors indicative of people that we should welcome? Where's the line? What's the difference?

 

[YourCaptor]

As to the part in bold, let me ask you this, (and I know it's hard to imagine at this point put give it a whirl), what if your personality was holding you back from something you really wanted? What if there was a job you could have, that was the best job in the world for you, but getting it would mean learning to adjust your behaviour, would you do it? Would you at least try to do it?

I don't find it hard to imagine at all.

If it was just for that role, and I knew I could do it, then sure I would try. But I can tell you right now though I’m never gonna add that “ist” to my psychology title cause I know I would just start slapping patients around. Some things I'm just not cut out for.

I’ve also experienced dissidence in certain settings and I tell you that is not a feeling I could put up with long. It really eats you up.

Imagine if you will, you are sitting in a room with people who all adamantly, without question as if it was natural, believe that eating mangoes not only should not be done, but its a disturbing crime. Imagine that view is shared outside that room too, and that even bringing up the concept that maybe its not so bad would be enough to have people question your sanity, and drop your name by the cops just in case.

So what do you do, brainwash yourself, act, avoid. What if it was something that all who saw you just knew. What if you had no choice but to believe that this part of you is that bad, but you can't be rid of it even if you would gladly pay with all 4 limbs.

 

[BiBunny]

I love when people discuss me as if I'm not even in the "room," so to speak. Perhaps I should start referring to myself in the third person in this thread. That'd be hot.

Also, the irony that one of the biggest hypocrites here is calling me a hypocrite is hardly lost on me.

 

[YourCaptor]

What I'm curious about is why we have these similarities, given the profound differences. I'm caught in an internal chicken and the egg debate. What makes one person able to say "no" and another unable to? Is it a result of trauma? Brain chemistry? Habit? Will? There are a lot of girls (and boys) who struggle with this, and very little support available (as you have already pointed out).

Often when I go in and out of my house I find a fuzzy thing laying there. Shes always frightened, shy and scared, and I love her for it, I always approach her. Her first reflex is to crouch down and squint, as if preparing for a blow. Then at one point when I’m already too close she will attempt a dash, which is easily foiled. I’ll hold my hand out for her to smell, but usually she is too occupied watching through fearful squinted eyes. I make sure to end each session with a calming touch, that way I win and gain a tad bit more trust.

Today her D was around, I hate that guy, pushy, laud and obnoxious, always tries to get in my house so I have to kick his ass. However his presents allowed me to approach her and she took a few very cautious sniffs at my hand. I love that girl, so cute.

Anyway, point of the story, I think doormat behavior is pretty natural to mammals. The omega wolf in the pack type thing.

 

[YourCaptor]

As long as they never complain. You aren't allowed to be that unless it makes you "happy" whatever the hell that is.

Sometimes the religion of "Happy" and "Whatever works for you" pisses me off.

Whatever works for you?

I don't know that one.

 

[ataxia.girl]

i thought i was the only one!! every time i hear or read those words "as long as it makes you happy," or "as long as it works for you" i want to scream like a flockin' banshee.

i'm screaming in my head a lot of the time anyway but its nice not to be the only one osg.

There is a presumption that happiness is possible for everyone. It isn't and that's just the way it is.

 

[ataxia.girl]

Y'know, if you simply stuck with whatever works for you, you might be happier.

Would you like a pamphlet? Perhaps a flower?

You are assuming there is something that does in fact work for me. i see no reason to assume that. That is not a forgone conclusion.

 

[Homburg]

I'm not presenting an argument; I'm trying to understand what BiBunny is saying.

I wasn't using "argument" in the contentious sense. More in the discursive sense.

1st thing I don't understand: She keeps comparing herself to osg, and I don't see the two as similar in the slightest, especially when it comes to general social interaction. Not on this board, and not in their descriptions of interactions with people at large.

Why is it so strange? Looking at behaviour as a spectrum, OSG is on the far end insofar as assertiveness is concerned. She makes for an excellent set-point for one end of that spectrum, and thus an very person to compare onesself to in discussing assertive behaviour.

How the heck she gets from the capacity for leading people around by the ears & bending them to her will when necessary, to ID as a doormat, is what I don't get. Why is BiBunny labeling herself that way? That's what I'm asking.

Introspection, maybe? I'll let her answer that question, but I will say that I don't personal have any confusion on that part.

2nd thing I don't understand: Her critique of the BDSM "community." She seems to be asking for compassion and less criticism for her behaviors, but I don't see her extending the same compassion to others - on multiple topics and with regard to multiple behaviors. It seems to me that she's criticizing people for being judgmental, when she herself is frequently, openly, and forcefully judgmental herself. Why are some types of behaviors indicative of people who should "jump off a cliff for the good of all humanity" - and other types of behaviors indicative of people that we should welcome? Where's the line? What's the difference?

Erm, many other people in this thread have similarly criticised the scene, as well as society at large. You've criticised the scene. So? It deserves criticism, as does society at large in regards to this topic. The BDSM community deserves the criticism for perpetuating the notion that doormats are bad and unworthy. Many in the community and society overall deserve criticism for victimising people like this.

--

You are assuming there is something that does in fact work for me. i see no reason to assume that. That is not a forgone conclusion.

It was humour. Or at least intended to be so. From what I recall, you're of an age to have seen or at least heard of the Hare Krishna people hanging out on street corners handing out pamphlets and flowers. So, no, I'm not assuming anything. I'm making a joke.

 

[JMohegan]

I wasn't using "argument" in the contentious sense. More in the discursive sense.



Why is it so strange? Looking at behaviour as a spectrum, OSG is on the far end insofar as assertiveness is concerned. She makes for an excellent set-point for one end of that spectrum, and thus an very person to compare onesself to in discussing assertive behaviour.



Introspection, maybe? I'll let her answer that question, but I will say that I don't personal have any confusion on that part.



Erm, many other people in this thread have similarly criticised the scene, as well as society at large. You've criticised the scene. So? It deserves criticism, as does society at large in regards to this topic. The BDSM community deserves the criticism for perpetuating the notion that doormats are bad and unworthy. Many in the community and society overall deserve criticism for victimising people like this.

What is a doormat, in your view? As applied to humans, what is your definition of that term?

 

[Homburg]

What is a doormat, in your view? As applied to humans, what is your definition of that term?

I'm no expert, and not one to get into definitional arguments by choice. It has various connotations, but, in my experience, implies a willingness to stay in a relationship far past the point where leaving is a good idea, and eating the sort of grief regularly that would cause most people to leave. There is also a strong flavour of victim to it, but that is another discussion, as I think the two are conflated.

So it is a combination of misplaced loyalty, and an acceptance of victimisation/use/abuse that "most people" would consider excessive.

In this case, however, I am not the one saying that a given person is not a doormat. You are. Thus your definition would be a more useful thing to discuss.

 

[eastern sun]

I've described it as "smelling like a victim" before. Some people really do just scream it out.

I think it's possible to "radiate defenselessness" without "smelling like a victim."

Maybe it's one of those "in the eyes of the beholder" things, where a submissive is a potential victim in the eyes of a sadist.

Is that true? Does overt submissiveness trigger sadistic impulses?
Or some other factor?

Could that explain why less masochistic submissives loudly proclaim "I'm no doormat," signalling to the sadists "I don't want that much pain"?

 

[Homburg]

I think it's possible to "radiate defenselessness" without "smelling like a victim."

Maybe it's one of those "in the eyes of the beholder" things, where a submissive is a potential victim in the eyes of a sadist.

Is that true? Does overt submissiveness trigger sadistic impulses?
Or some other factor?

Could that explain why less masochistic submissives loudly proclaim "I'm no doormat," signalling to the sadists "I don't want that much pain"?

I consider it an "eye of the beholder" thing, and think that's an excellent description for it. While I see that behaviour as a hallmark of submissive tendencies, a predator sees it as a mark of prey. As I've said, I've personally gone all sorts of places that others have called "dangerous", and never been hassled or troubled, yet I know people who seem like they can't even go to the grocery store without getting some kind of static from the world.

The "not a doormat" line may well be self-protection. I don't know that it is a signal of disinterest in pain, but it may well be an indicator of disinterest in heavy control.

And I use "predator" instead of "sadist" on purpose. The sort of person I am talking about is victimised in many other ways than pain. They are often victimised financially, given extra responsibility, put-on by 'friends', etc. The people doing so are not necessarily doing it because they want to hurt or enjoy pain. Often they're just opportunists and users.

 

[JMohegan]

I'm no expert, and not one to get into definitional arguments by choice. It has various connotations, but, in my experience, implies a willingness to stay in a relationship far past the point where leaving is a good idea, and eating the sort of grief regularly that would cause most people to leave. There is also a strong flavour of victim to it, but that is another discussion, as I think the two are conflated.

So it is a combination of misplaced loyalty, and an acceptance of victimisation/use/abuse that "most people" would consider excessive.

In this case, however, I am not the one saying that a given person is not a doormat. You are. Thus your definition would be a more useful thing to discuss.

My working definition is Webster's ("one that submits without protest to abuse or indignities").

Thank you for answering the question. People seem to be using the word to mean different things - some more broad than others. Now that I have a good idea of what you, Homburg, are talking about, I can respond more effectively to this:

The BDSM community deserves the criticism for perpetuating the notion that doormats are bad and unworthy. Many in the community and society overall deserve criticism for victimising people like this.

I'd say that the BDSM community sends out mixed messages on this topic.

On the one hand, huge sections of BDSM culture actually romanticize and fetishize the notion of the vulnerable female submissive. In these subsections of the kinky world, the entire D/s dynamic itself seems built on the idea that an s-type is somehow more helpless and at risk than other people, and therefore in need of a benevolent, caretaker, pseudo-parental D-type, to mold her for her own good and to protect her from predators and the unscrupulous.

I don't see that portion of the community perpetuating the notion that women who fit your description are bad and unworthy. Just the opposite, in fact.

On the other hand, it is true that many kinksters look down on that type of dynamic. It is also true that many kinksters defend their choices in mutually beneficial relationships with language that is offensive to those who make poor choices, or are genuinely unable to choose.

 

[JMohegan]

I think it's possible to "radiate defenselessness" without "smelling like a victim."

Maybe it's one of those "in the eyes of the beholder" things, where a submissive is a potential victim in the eyes of a sadist.

Is that true? Does overt submissiveness trigger sadistic impulses?
Or some other factor?

Could that explain why less masochistic submissives loudly proclaim "I'm no doormat," signalling to the sadists "I don't want that much pain"?

Speaking for myself here - submissiveness is extremely arousing to my inner sadist. Masochism, not at all.

I don't want her to want the pain. I want her to want me, and take the pain accordingly.

 

[Netzach]

I'm no expert, and not one to get into definitional arguments by choice. It has various connotations, but, in my experience, implies a willingness to stay in a relationship far past the point where leaving is a good idea, and eating the sort of grief regularly that would cause most people to leave. There is also a strong flavour of victim to it, but that is another discussion, as I think the two are conflated.

So it is a combination of misplaced loyalty, and an acceptance of victimisation/use/abuse that "most people" would consider excessive.

In this case, however, I am not the one saying that a given person is not a doormat. You are. Thus your definition would be a more useful thing to discuss.

Then I'm a doormat, I'm a total doormat.

If the "willingness to stay past expiration in a relationship" is the definition. Most committedly married people fit that bill. At some point, unless I'm just weird, your spouse is going to do things that no one would question you if you left. No one. And you don't.

I'd say that the willingness to stay in ANY relationship past the expiration is a different issue, and more indicative of a doormat. A willingness to get in ANY relationship when desired, the inability to function alone - those are more my markers.

I'd also cite what osg talked about in regard to being unable to say no with non-sexualized interactions with favor upon favor being granted, often passive aggressively in the case of a lot of people but granted nonetheless.

 

[Netzach]

i'm screaming in my head a lot of the time anyway but its nice not to be the only one osg.

There is a presumption that happiness is possible for everyone. It isn't and that's just the way it is.

I do for another reason. "You do as you see fit" was my grandfather's code for "you're a total moron and I've TRIED to get you to see the light, but what can I expect from my moron family." This is the real meaning of "you do something I don't agree with."

 

[Netzach]

hmm...i honestly don't see that message, haven't personally expressed that message, and perhaps you are seeing it because your view is colored by all of those experiences with your mother. and this is reason number TWO why i don't want children (reason no. 1 being i just don't like them in large doses). it is why it is absolutely out of the question for me to be in any way an authority figure to my Master's child. i have sense enough to know and understand who i am. while my nurturing/heal the world qualities work just fine with a cat, my total inability to be assertive, to discipline...mingled with constant self-doubt and deprecation...would make for a really thoroughly screwed up kid. further, not being able to take care of or even protect just myself, i know i could not adequately protect a child either. i can easily see myself as the single mom with the alcoholic violent boyfriend, feeling helpless as he does whatever he wants with my kids.

so yeah, motherhood...not meant for everyone. it's too bad everyone doesn't engage in that kind of honesty and reflection before deciding to be parents.

Backing up to say I don't think you were necessarily saying that, but I think it's where the conversation was starting to lead me, and you are correct, totally based on my own personal bag o' shit. But I think my POV is hopefully kind of interesting, in that for some people general disgust and ignorance isn't the overwhelming motivator for discomfort with ultra-social-submissive personality. More things like fear, nervousness, backstory.

I've always admired the degree to which you have considered the likelihood that your life would be a total clusterfuck to have children in. For real. Would that more people did.

 

[ataxia.girl]

i take a certain amount of enjoyment in being miserable. i'm not sure why. i kinda find my own misery to be unavoidable as it offsets the highs which are at times very high. i'm occasionally told i should change my situation but i know me and i know the highs and lows would not level out in a different situation, they would just be adhered to different "causes". The cause of my emotional turmoil is me but they are triggered by life. The only thing i can choose is how i behave in the face of said turmoil but the turmoil and self esteem challenges are going to be there no matter what my life situation is. i could do retarded things to make it worse and sometimes i do but i can never entirely escape it.

If i took an assertiveness class next week and got up the nerve to make huge changes to avoid a few current triggers i know without a doubt other triggers would be readily forthcoming. i often have a hard time convincing people the solution to my "problems" is not changing my situation but i know it isn't.

 

[ownedsubgal]

i'm screaming in my head a lot of the time anyway but its nice not to be the only one osg.

There is a presumption that happiness is possible for everyone. It isn't and that's just the way it is.

what angers me so much about "whatever works for you," and "as long as you're happy" is that they are so many millions of light-years outside and beyond the point. those statements imply choice and control, where it simply does not exist. it is like me being black, and someone saying, "well as long as it works for you. there are plenty of people who like black chicks." what the flock?? lol.

as far as happiness being possible for everyone...no it's not. but more importantly, happiness is not even the freakin' point.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I'd say that the BDSM community sends out mixed messages on this topic.

On the one hand, huge sections of BDSM culture actually romanticize and fetishize the notion of the vulnerable female submissive. In these subsections of the kinky world, the entire D/s dynamic itself seems built on the idea that an s-type is somehow more helpless and at risk than other people, and therefore in need of a benevolent, caretaker, pseudo-parental D-type, to mold her for her own good and to protect her from predators and the unscrupulous.

I don't see that portion of the community perpetuating the notion that women who fit your description are bad and unworthy. Just the opposite, in fact.

On the other hand, it is true that many kinksters look down on that type of dynamic. It is also true that many kinksters defend their choices in mutually beneficial relationships with language that is offensive to those who make poor choices, or are genuinely unable to choose.

hi JMohegan...while there are subsets of the D/s and BDSM lifestyles (i always differentiate the two, my own personal pet peeve) which romanticize the vulnerable female submissive as you say, they all draw the line at anything approaching doormatishness (and i also go by the dict. definition).

for instance, in the "daddydom" lifestyle the daddy-type dom is supposed to be very nurturing and protective, gently guiding and corrective. the submissive, very childlike and helpless. however for many in that group, these are roles which allow them to escape from their everyday reality. the "babygirl" could be a successful bank manager, independent single mom, but find relief and peace in mentally and emotionally going back to a simpler and more childlike state of mind with "daddy." but a woman who was genuinely vulnerable, helpless, dependent ALL the time?? they would generally not be welcome with open arms into that particular lifestyle community, or any other.

so even those who praise the weaker and more needy submissive, seem to believe those qualities should be compartmentalized for the proper place and time, and should not reflect one's overall day to day personality.

i have never come across any group or "school" of D/s lifestylers who find anything positive or acceptable about someone like me, or about Dominants who desire someone like me. never.

 

[ataxia.girl]

what angers me so much about "whatever works for you," and "as long as you're happy" is that they are so many millions of light-years outside and beyond the point. those statements imply choice and control, where it simply does not exist. it is like me being black, and someone saying, "well as long as it works for you. there are plenty of people who like black chicks." what the flock?? lol.

as far as happiness being possible for everyone...no it's not. but more importantly, happiness is not even the freakin' point.

Yeah... i'm just kinda nuts. It does really bother me when people treat me like i have a choice to just not be nuts. Sometimes i have perspective and sometimes i don't and sometimes i feel most lucid when i am at my most crazy, often in fact.

It bugs me that i sometimes feel like i am supposed to feel guilty for enjoying being this way, for liking myself the way i am. i hate it when i feel like accepting myself is interpreted as not moving forward or trying to "get better". i feel like i am being held to an unrealistic expectation that everyone CAN get better.

Anyway.... i'm comfortable being uncomfortable with being both a doormat and a crazy ass bitch. Actually i am more comfortable than i have ever been because Daddy accepts me. His acceptance lifts a gigantic weight off me to try to be something else. To just be comfortable in my own struggle with the acknowledgment that i will simply continue to struggle. In a sense that is life for everyone and we never really get to walk in each others shoes.

 

[JMohegan]

hi JMohegan...while there are subsets of the D/s and BDSM lifestyles (i always differentiate the two, my own personal pet peeve) which romanticize the vulnerable female submissive as you say, they all draw the line at anything approaching doormatishness (and i also go by the dict. definition).

for instance, in the "daddydom" lifestyle the daddy-type dom is supposed to be very nurturing and protective, gently guiding and corrective. the submissive, very childlike and helpless. however for many in that group, these are roles which allow them to escape from their everyday reality. the "babygirl" could be a successful bank manager, independent single mom, but find relief and peace in mentally and emotionally going back to a simpler and more childlike state of mind with "daddy." but a woman who was genuinely vulnerable, helpless, dependent ALL the time?? they would generally not be welcome with open arms into that particular lifestyle community, or any other.

so even those who praise the weaker and more needy submissive, seem to believe those qualities should be compartmentalized for the proper place and time, and should not reflect one's overall day to day personality.

i have never come across any group or "school" of D/s lifestylers who find anything positive or acceptable about someone like me, or about Dominants who desire someone like me. never.

"Genuinely vulnerable, helpless, dependent ALL the time" is not the way Homburg defined doormat, so we're changing subjects a bit here. Keep in mind that the post you just quoted was written by me in response to his definition and corresponding observation of the community at large.

I agree with you, that it is rare to find D-types who say they desire someone who fits your description. However, I have spoken to people who embrace a vision of submissives and D/s that comes close to what you describe. Fans of Tovah, for example.

 

[ownedsubgal]

"Genuinely vulnerable, helpless, dependent ALL the time" is not the way Homburg defined doormat, so we're changing subjects a bit here. Keep in mind that the post you just quoted was written by me in response to his definition and corresponding observation of the community at large.

oh i understand...that was just laziness on my part, i intended to quote an earlier post of yours where you first described the conflicting schools of thought on D/s, but couldn't find it.

I agree with you, that it is rare to find D-types who say they desire someone who fits your description. However, I have spoken to people who embrace a vision of submissives and D/s that comes close to what you describe. Fans of Tovah, for example.

although, as i stated in that thread, my experiences with that crowd weren't exactly kumbaya-ish. but yes at least it let me know that there was some awareness and acknowledgment of submissiveness as an innate personality trait as opposed to a choice or kink, and that was a comfort.

 

[Keroin]

...but a woman who was genuinely vulnerable, helpless, dependent ALL the time?? they would generally not be welcome with open arms into that particular lifestyle community, or any other.

so even those who praise the weaker and more needy submissive, seem to believe those qualities should be compartmentalized for the proper place and time, and should not reflect one's overall day to day personality.

i have never come across any group or "school" of D/s lifestylers who find anything positive or acceptable about someone like me, or about Dominants who desire someone like me. never.

The more extreme your personality, (general "you"), I think the less likely it is to find people willing to accept you or who openly seek someone like you. This applies to all kinds of different traits, not just submissiveness. I've never heard any of my female friends express a desire to meet a man who can barely contain his rage and is likely to lash out physically whenever he feels like it. This is not a condemnation of that type of personality so much as a statement about who they, my friends, are and what they need/want.

I would not wish to be in a relationship with someone who is dependent on me all the time. That doesn't mean a person like that is bad/wrong/broken, it only means that I am not capable of being happy, or perhaps even able to function, with a person like that. Nor would I be capable of offering someone like that what they need to function and be happy, (or some degree of happy). I do not want to be with someone who needs to be in control all the time, either, for the same reasons.

Do I believe weakness or submissiveness should be compartmentalized? No. I've compartmentalized mine because that's the only way I can be happy. Because I am able to choose my behaviour, this is how I've chosen to live my life. If you are unable to choose to behave differently, then obviously this isn't going to work for you. However, if someone tells me they are unhappy with their submissiveness/weakness and that their behaviour is causing them to suffer, my natural reaction will be to suggest they consider altering their behaviour - this does not come from a desire to fit them into a mold or make them like me, it comes from a desire to not see people suffer. I understand, now, from what I've read here that this kind of suggestion, though motivated by genuine kindness, is considered offensive.

To be honest, I'm not sure how I am supposed to react now. Though, outside of this board, I've never dealt with anyone who is the level of submissive that you describe yourself as, OSG.

But lets say I met you in real life, how would you like me to treat you? What kinds of actions could I take that would make you feel at ease?

 

[ataxia.girl]

The more extreme your personality, (general "you"), I think the less likely it is to find people willing to accept you or who openly seek someone like you. This applies to all kinds of different traits, not just submissiveness. I've never heard any of my female friends express a desire to meet a man who can barely contain his rage and is likely to lash out physically whenever he feels like it. This is not a condemnation of that type of personality so much as a statement about who they, my friends, are and what they need/want.

Interesting... i tend to agree.