The Doormat Discussion

[graceanne]

"That would be a good thing for them to cut on my tombstone. Wherever she went, including here, it was against her better judgment." ~Dorothy Parker

LOL

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.

I can't speak for other people, but when I say things like that it means 'I don't understand, but I'm not going to keep arguing it with you'.

for some reason "kink" always sounds like "fun, sexy thing that gets me off"

That's pretty much my definition of kink.

As far as whether or not being a doormat is a choice, my inclination is to say yes, but that's because my definition of doormat appears to be different than most of yours.

That's because 'doormat' is another label, rather like submissive, slave, dominant, master, and the like. Therefore, the definition will vary with each person. I do not consider myself a doormat or a slave, but I know that I qualify as both under some people's definitions.

That said, one of the reasons I don't consider myself a doormat or slave is that I really don't care what other people label me as.

Whatever makes them happy.

My friend AP is like this, and says often that he isn't interested in a doormat. For him, the appearance of conquest is important. I don't get that. If it is a real on-going conquest, that sounds like too much damned work to me, and too fractious a relationship. If it is fake conquest, well, it's fake. Bleh. Fine for a scene here or there, but I don't want a steady diet of it.

I have never understood the whole 'conquest' thing. Why not just be upfront and honest? If I'm with someone I'm with them. If I'm not, they know it and I'm not going to change my mind.

 

[ataxia.girl]

i do realize it's this very quality which makes me and those like me very undesirable to most Dominants, because they cannot be guaranteed exclusivity. that was a cause for much depression and hopelessness before i found my Master, and as i said before even now it is hurtful to be part of group widely considered (in or out of the D/s lifestyle) to be least valuable and least attractive.

i am much the same although i was raised in such a repressed, ultra conservative culture it is not so apparent as i have developed many mechanisms to keep men away. Daddy is aware the only way to keep me exclusive is to keep me hidden away and he likes that since captivity is one of his kinks. i don't know how it would play out in a real world scenario if we actually lived together, i doubt it would be much of a problem. Currently my intimidation wall is such that it is very rare for me to get hit on, or if i do i am very good at pretending i don't know what they are on about. i typically avoid situations where i might be approached because it causes me such anxiety.

 

[Netzach]

See, my sense of exclusivity isn't the motivator. I don't care who he fucks, good luck on that count. I don't care who he bottoms to - tell me the sordid detail.

I would not be happy if he was incapable of staying out of emotional/mental trouble entirely were it not for me. Monitoring him is simply something I don't find personally freeing in that sense. Happy PC BDSM isms aside about mutually fulfilling relationships blah blah blah - he is here for me. He is here to improve my life, streamline my shit, know what's on MY calendar, so I don't have to.

I get that for some people D/g D/b relationships that have this component of "if you don't control me I'm just liable to do the wrong thing for myself" are the shit. For me, they are not.

 

[Homburg]

I won't say that I'm tougher than leather, but I do know that there's no way in hell that I could inflict the kind of pain I've taken without causing hospital-type injuries, a point I often make when I'm dishing out the pain. Been there, done that.

I'm not sure that I'm thinking about the physical. It's more the mental and emotional issues that I am looking at. Conceptually, bottoming physically does not bother me (or excite me, thus I don't do it), but the idea of someone attempting mental or emotional topping on me provokes a more visceral reaction. Simply put, I would not take what I dish out there.

To give an example, the show "Hell's Kitchen" has a pile of chefs competing for a job in one of Gordon Ramsay's restaurants. He is incredibly verbally abusive to those people. That is just how the show works. I watched it with viv and MIS, and didn't get it. He'd get one warning, then I would paste him across the teeth if he pulled that shit with me. I won't tolerate that sort of treatment, even for a "dream job". Fortunately, I am not going to be in that environment.

Still, a pyl could potentially handle that and even get off on it. One of those situations where I could dish it out, but am not going to take it. And, in this case, losing my temper would be enough reason to say that I couldn't take it. Thus I can dish it out, but here is a situation in which I cannot take it.

Not sure that this is precisely where I'm going with this thought though. It's an itch in the back of my head that I can't scratch.

--

I have never understood the whole 'conquest' thing. Why not just be upfront and honest? If I'm with someone I'm with them. If I'm not, they know it and I'm not going to change my mind.

Yup, me neither. I don't get it. He doesn't really get it either, thus he is single more often than not. *shrug*

 

[JMohegan]

the choice thing i can understand...many Dominants obviously feed off that energy of being eagerly wanted and joyfully surrendered to, and especially in the process of bringing a submissive to that state and maintaining that.

now as for being desired and respected as an individual, not simply a Dominant...that makes sense. but i wonder why the assumption is that simply because a submissive defers to an individual, that they are in any way showing respect for that individual, much less desiring them. and speaking only for myself, i don't place Dominants in some special category and feel the need to automatically defer to them...that is just my nature when interacting with people, any people, in general. and yes i do realize it's this very quality which makes me and those like me very undesirable to most Dominants, because they cannot be guaranteed exclusivity. that was a cause for much depression and hopelessness before i found my Master, and as i said before even now it is hurtful to be part of group widely considered (in or out of the D/s lifestyle) to be least valuable and least attractive.


but as for the commonly expressed belief that there can be nothing special or valuable for a Dominant when a submissive freely surrenders to others....i'll say this: the difference for me between submitting to my Master and submitting to anyone else in any way, is that i always, always always want to submit to him. even when it's hard, even when i'm terrified, i always want to give that to him. and i have never felt that with anyone else, it had always in the past been a mere reflex and nothing more. and that is the difference and what makes my submission something special.

This isn't just a question of exclusivity; this is a very profound ethical issue for me.

The female's ability to exercise discretion in granting consent is a fundamental prerequisite for intimate contact, according to the code of honor with which I was raised. If she's too drunk, too stoned, too distraught with grief or stress, and so on - i.e., mentally unable to make decisions in accordance with personal judgment and free choice, for any reason - then the rules for that female are different.

If she's drunk or stoned, then a man of honor will pick her up and take her to sleep (alone), in a safe bed. If she's distraught, then he will find a professional or other competent person to help her cope. If he can't do these things, then he will make sure there's someone around who will.

What he won't do, under any circumstances, is take advantage of her inability to exercise discretion, in order to satisfy his own sexual or other needs.

I am not saying that your Master is dishonorable, osg. In fact, I note that you perceive his ownership of you as providing exactly the protection that you need. I'm just trying to explain that, for guys like me, this isn't a question of finding women like you unattractive or lacking in value. It's more a question of seeing you as someone needing a particular type of protection, and not feeling like the appropriate person to provide it.

 

[ataxia.girl]

What he won't do, under any circumstances, is take advantage of her inability to exercise discretion, in order to satisfy his own sexual or other needs.

Being taken or kept is one of my fundamental needs. i have no need to gift my submission but i do have need to be dominated. Without it i just don't feel right. i feel like i'm dominating myself and i'm unclear what the dominant's role is if everything is hinged on my consent\obedience.

i've been criticized for not initiating sex and not being responsive enough to gentle lovemaking. When i try its just all wrong. In every other part of my life i can conform to what is expected but not in the bedroom. In that sense i suppose i am the antithesis of a doormat.

i am not so uncomfortable as i used to be at my inability\refusal to conform in the bedroom but i do definitely still feel a twinge when i perceive that i simply do not function on a "civilized" level. my consent generally goes no further than an initial affirmation they may do as they wish and i will do the same. i am most comfortable in relationships that operate on as primitive a level as possible. Cavemen turn me on.

"REAL TPE ought to be mental and emotional combat between to competitors of equal merit." ~PrincessPinkPantie on Fetlife

 

[graceanne]

"REAL TPE ought to be mental and emotional combat between to competitors of equal merit." ~PrincessPinkPantie on Fetlife

 

[JMohegan]

Being taken or kept is one of my fundamental needs. i have no need to gift my submission but i do have need to be dominated. Without it i just don't feel right. i feel like i'm dominating myself and i'm unclear what the dominant's role is if everything is hinged on my consent\obedience.

Here's hoping that whoever takes you serves your needs well.

 

[ataxia.girl]

Yes, that is just my opinion for me and all other disclaimers =P

It is, i think, an often overlooked dynamic. In my case a very workable one.

 

[ownedsubgal]

This isn't just a question of exclusivity; this is a very profound ethical issue for me.

The female's ability to exercise discretion in granting consent is a fundamental prerequisite for intimate contact, according to the code of honor with which I was raised. If she's too drunk, too stoned, too distraught with grief or stress, and so on - i.e., mentally unable to make decisions in accordance with personal judgment and free choice, for any reason - then the rules for that female are different.

If she's drunk or stoned, then a man of honor will pick her up and take her to sleep (alone), in a safe bed. If she's distraught, then he will find a professional or other competent person to help her cope. If he can't do these things, then he will make sure there's someone around who will.

What he won't do, under any circumstances, is take advantage of her inability to exercise discretion, in order to satisfy his own sexual or other needs.

well if i follow you correctly, you find it unethical to be intimately involved (and by this i assume you mean either sex or a committed relationship) with a woman who is unable to "exercise discretion in granting consent." my personality/nature/wiring/whatever you wish to call it, strips me of this ability. so by your standards, no honorable man should be with me at all. unless perhaps he guided me in the direction of some kind of professional psychiatric help and i was able to be "cured" first. that is a message i have received many times in the past, and i can understand the good intentions behind it, however misplaced.

personally i find it a very depressing thought to go through life either without love and companionship altogether, or to have to be "fixed" and reprogrammed into someone else first. those used to be the only options i saw for myself, before Daddy. He does take advantage of my vulnerability, and my tendency to always give in to others who want something from me. these qualities appeal both to his protective paternal side, and his deviant perv side. and that is very lucky for me, because it means that i am accepted and desired as i am, rather than being a defect in desperate need of repair and therefore untouchable.

 

[Kikori]

Way I see it, however, is that an 'honorable' man would sooner make sure a person with a problem, especially in their judgement being messed with (such as a drunk's impulsiveness), is cared for and brought to a sensible level again before anything is attempted.

You, however, don't have an inability to say "no" from being drunk, high, drugged up, or tampered with. You're you; with you, an 'honorable' man wouldn't be as worried about consent as if you'd want to do something. Of course you'd be unable to say "no" to being taken, which is why your Daddy has to rescue you. But, and I may be wrong about this due to not knowing you, you still know if you want to do this or that despite having to agree to it. So your case lies in if people go by your desires/ personal preferences rather than your consent, since you know what's going on and know what you want more than the people listed in the first few lines.

 

[JMohegan]

well if i follow you correctly, you find it unethical to be intimately involved (and by this i assume you mean either sex or a committed relationship) with a woman who is unable to "exercise discretion in granting consent." my personality/nature/wiring/whatever you wish to call it, strips me of this ability. so by your standards, no honorable man should be with me at all. unless perhaps he guided me in the direction of some kind of professional psychiatric help and i was able to be "cured" first. that is a message i have received many times in the past, and i can understand the good intentions behind it, however misplaced.

personally i find it a very depressing thought to go through life either without love and companionship altogether, or to have to be "fixed" and reprogrammed into someone else first. those used to be the only options i saw for myself, before Daddy. He does take advantage of my vulnerability, and my tendency to always give in to others who want something from me. these qualities appeal both to his protective paternal side, and his deviant perv side. and that is very lucky for me, because it means that i am accepted and desired as i am, rather than being a defect in desperate need of repair and therefore untouchable.

I was speaking of my personal code of honor, osg. Trying to provide a candid response to your question about my perspective.

You cut off the conclusion of my post, so I've copied and reposted it below. As I noted, you perceive that your Master provides for your unique needs. Enslaving you in the way he does may in fact be an honorable thing to do, and a beneficial fit for you both. I don't have enough information to decide that definitively. In any case, it's your call and your Master's to make.

People with disabilities are not "defects in desperate need of repair." They are people who need special accommodations, coping mechanisms, or help.

On this thread, you have stated that your master can not leave you alone in public for the length of time it takes him to use the men's room, or allow you to leave the house alone beyond the front mailbox. That's a very intensive type of care he is providing, and not everyone has the capacity or inclination to provide it.

Since you declare yourself unable to choose the ones to whom you submit, it seems extraordinarily fortuitous that the one who took you as a slave is one with whom you perceive a good fit. But as you know, many are not so lucky. And for this reason - yes, I would recommend professional counseling for any unattached adult who could not stop him/herself from walking off with strangers and submitting to all and sundry.

I am not saying that your Master is dishonorable, osg. In fact, I note that you perceive his ownership of you as providing exactly the protection that you need. I'm just trying to explain that, for guys like me, this isn't a question of finding women like you unattractive or lacking in value. It's more a question of seeing you as someone needing a particular type of protection, and not feeling like the appropriate person to provide it.

 

[sadangel]

People with disabilities are not "defects in desperate need of repair." They are people who need special accommodations, coping mechanisms, or help.

Thank you. I do not in any way consider myself to be a "defect in desperate need of repair" for I am as you say, a person who needs special accommodations, and help for some of the things that my Sir wants to do. I let him know early on, as much as possible what my disabilities are and how they can be accommodated. Mostly, it's just allowing a little extra time, or a helping hand to get up or down. He doesn't have a problem with it.

I'm really hoping the person who posted that statement didn't mean it in the way that it appears to have come across.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Thank you. I do not in any way consider myself to be a "defect in desperate need of repair" for I am as you say, a person who needs special accommodations, and help for some of the things that my Sir wants to do. I let him know early on, as much as possible what my disabilities are and how they can be accommodated. Mostly, it's just allowing a little extra time, or a helping hand to get up or down. He doesn't have a problem with it.

I'm really hoping the person who posted that statement didn't mean it in the way that it appears to have come across.

sadangel, i think perhaps you have not been following the thread closely. i am the one who made that statement, and my point was that i do not view myself or my submissiveness as a defect in need of repair, the way many on the outside may view it.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I was speaking of my personal code of honor, osg. Trying to provide a candid response to your question about my perspective.

You cut off the conclusion of my post, so I've copied and reposted it below. As I noted, you perceive that your Master provides for your unique needs. Enslaving you in the way he does may in fact be an honorable thing to do, and a beneficial fit for you both. I don't have enough information to decide that definitively. In any case, it's your call and your Master's to make.

People with disabilities are not "defects in desperate need of repair." They are people who need special accommodations, coping mechanisms, or help.

On this thread, you have stated that your master can not leave you alone in public for the length of time it takes him to use the men's room, or allow you to leave the house alone beyond the front mailbox. That's a very intensive type of care he is providing, and not everyone has the capacity or inclination to provide it.

Since you declare yourself unable to choose the ones to whom you submit, it seems extraordinarily fortuitous that the one who took you as a slave is one with whom you perceive a good fit. But as you know, many are not so lucky. And for this reason - yes, I would recommend professional counseling for any unattached adult who could not stop him/herself from walking off with strangers and submitting to all and sundry.

JMohegan, i cut off the final paragraph of your previous post because it focused on what you felt were my "perceptions" of reality. you reiterated it above...i "perceive" my Master and i as a good fit, i "perceive" that he provides for my needs. perceive is a word that triggers negative emotions in me, as it reminds me of the way psychotherapists and psychologists would speak to me. in their view i was a crazy person completely out of touch with reality, therefore everything was phrased that way. it was infuriating and frustrating. although i can understand that is probably not the way you intend it to come across, and maybe it is just as you say simply a matter of you not knowing us personally or having enough information to say anything definitively.

and yes i certainly understand that it takes a great deal of effort, energy, vigilance to own someone like me. if one is not inclined to view those things as rewarding in some way, then they just shouldn't bother. however the idea that some would find it unethical to be with someone like me, the same way many would find it unethical for someone of normal mental abilities to be with someone who was mentally retarded...is disheartening to say the least.

as i said earlier it does not bother me so much that submissives like myself are not desired by the masses, what hurts is being almost universally seen as defective, or if that is too harsh a term, unfit. unfit to give valid consent, unfit to be intimately involved with, and therefore impossible to be accepted as they are.

"professional counseling" for someone like this, if undertaken seriously, typically means a reprogramming and rewiring from the ground up of who they are, not any validation or acceptance of who they are.

 

[sadangel]

sadangel, i think perhaps you have not been following the thread closely. i am the one who made that statement, and my point was that i do not view myself or my submissiveness as a defect in need of repair, the way many on the outside may view it.

I see that now. I apologize.

 

[Homburg]

Y'know, altogether too many therapists and psychologists see submission as broken and in need of fixing. Same with masochism, dominance, sadism, etc. We're ALL broken to these people.

And my take on the whole "man of honour" thing, and it was how I was raised too, is to focus on the part that talks about taking that drunk girl to a safe bed for the night. It is my onus, as a man of conscience, to take care of someone like that, and see them to a position of safety. If a relationship happens afterwards, it is not a question of honour, just compatibility.

 

[JMohegan]

JMohegan, i cut off the final paragraph of your previous post because it focused on what you felt were my "perceptions" of reality. you reiterated it above...i "perceive" my Master and i as a good fit, i "perceive" that he provides for my needs. perceive is a word that triggers negative emotions in me, as it reminds me of the way psychotherapists and psychologists would speak to me. in their view i was a crazy person completely out of touch with reality, therefore everything was phrased that way. it was infuriating and frustrating. although i can understand that is probably not the way you intend it to come across, and maybe it is just as you say simply a matter of you not knowing us personally or having enough information to say anything definitively.

and yes i certainly understand that it takes a great deal of effort, energy, vigilance to own someone like me. if one is not inclined to view those things as rewarding in some way, then they just shouldn't bother. however the idea that some would find it unethical to be with someone like me, the same way many would find it unethical for someone of normal mental abilities to be with someone who was mentally retarded...is disheartening to say the least.

as i said earlier it does not bother me so much that submissives like myself are not desired by the masses, what hurts is being almost universally seen as defective, or if that is too harsh a term, unfit. unfit to give valid consent, unfit to be intimately involved with, and therefore impossible to be accepted as they are.

"professional counseling" for someone like this, if undertaken seriously, typically means a reprogramming and rewiring from the ground up of who they are, not any validation or acceptance of who they are.

No, osg, I am not trying to frustrate or infuriate you. I am genuinely struggling with vocabulary here, because you say you can't selectively consent to what happens to you (so "consent to," "agree to" or "choose" are out), and you roll your eyes when people talk about whatever makes you happy (so "enjoy" and similar descriptors are out) - in short, words I usually use in talking about why one person stays with another don't apply, so I'm struggling to pick alternatives.

I don't know you well enough to know what you need, or what the best fit for you would be. You say your Master is what you need and a fortuitous fit; that's all I meant with "perceive."

I am certain that it is rewarding to care for you and serve your needs, osg. Saying that I have a preference for someone who can run errands on her own, volunteer independently, pursue a career, etc., is not the same thing as saying I find the reward in your Master's position unfathomable. I understand the protective instinct very well.

I do not see you as unattractive, lacking in value, or defective. It seems the more I try to convey this message, the more determined you are to ignore it.

As for my personal code of honor - it is so deeply ingrained in my persona that it has become as much a part of MY "personality/nature/wiring/whatever you wish to call it" as your submission-as-universal-reflex is of yours. If you find it disheartening, there's really nothing I can do about that fact.

 

[sadangel]

Y'know, altogether too many therapists and psychologists see submission as broken and in need of fixing. Same with masochism, dominance, sadism, etc. We're ALL broken to these people.

And my take on the whole "man of honour" thing, and it was how I was raised too, is to focus on the part that talks about taking that drunk girl to a safe bed for the night. It is my onus, as a man of conscience, to take care of someone like that, and see them to a position of safety. If a relationship happens afterwards, it is not a question of honour, just compatibility.

I know that I am fortunate in that both my psychiatrist and my therapist do not view it as being broken and needing fixing. They are both very willing to ask questions to understand more and to give their view of things. They often have me thinking. One of the questions both asked at different times was whether I was using a D/s relationship in order to be "abused"...I explained that it was not, but that I could see how it was possible. That in fact, Sir and I have discussed if he ever feels that it is that, we will stop play and talk carefully about it.

 

[JMohegan]

And my take on the whole "man of honour" thing, and it was how I was raised too, is to focus on the part that talks about taking that drunk girl to a safe bed for the night. It is my onus, as a man of conscience, to take care of someone like that, and see them to a position of safety. If a relationship happens afterwards, it is not a question of honour, just compatibility.

Right. But the point is - you wait until she has the capacity to choose what's in her own best interest. To evaluate compatibility for herself, and make decisions accordingly.

 

[ataxia.girl]

It also describes my great Aunt Cora. And correct me if I am wrong.. ataxia, is that not a close description of how many married female members of the Mormon church are as well? At least years ago they were.

These women stay busy, keep their heads down and their mouths shut, they do not argue with their husbands, make no decisions, they blend in, do not draw attention to themselves, do what they are supposed to do, when they are not working that are sitting spacing out on mending clothes, needle work, knitting, crocheting. They stay out of others peoples business, keep to their homes, family and church. But yet it is difficult to find a stronger breed of women.

i missed this post. Yes that is how it is. We walk the halls in church with our blank smiles popping our prozac making sure to look at happy as possible. i wasn't naturally as good at this as some seemed to be.

i am now one of those wives\mothers who never stops moving and irritates my family at my inability to just sit still and relax.

 

[ataxia.girl]

No, osg, I am not trying to frustrate or infuriate you. I am genuinely struggling with vocabulary here, because you say you can't selectively consent to what happens to you (so "consent to," "agree to" or "choose" are out), and you roll your eyes when people talk about whatever makes you happy (so "enjoy" and similar descriptors are out) - in short, words I usually use in talking about why one person stays with another don't apply, so I'm struggling to pick alternatives.

I don't know you well enough to know what you need, or what the best fit for you would be. You say your Master is what you need and a fortuitous fit; that's all I meant with "perceive."

I am certain that it is rewarding to care for you and serve your needs, osg. Saying that I have a preference for someone who can run errands on her own, volunteer independently, pursue a career, etc., is not the same thing as saying I find the reward in your Master's position unfathomable. I understand the protective instinct very well.

I do not see you as unattractive, lacking in value, or defective. It seems the more I try to convey this message, the more determined you are to ignore it.

As for my personal code of honor - it is so deeply ingrained in my persona that it has become as much a part of MY "personality/nature/wiring/whatever you wish to call it" as your submission-as-universal-reflex is of yours. If you find it disheartening, there's really nothing I can do about that fact.

The frustration i think is because the language most people use seems to assume some sort of "healthiness" for lack of a better word is possible for everyone. Well i don't believe it is and yet i occasionally get criticized for refusing to "get better". i do happen to believe i am broken in some irreparable ways and am glad to have found someone who values the very thing in me which is not quite right and has often caused me shame, rather than someone who merely puts up with it. It feels good to be wanted for the thing i cannot change. It feels good to be free of the pressure to change it and simply be what i am.

The exclusivity of the PC language which assumes mental health is attainable by all still grates.

 

[intothewoods]

Y'know, altogether too many therapists and psychologists see submission as broken and in need of fixing. Same with masochism, dominance, sadism, etc. We're ALL broken to these people.

My former therapist did not see it as broken. I know there are plenty of crappy therapists out there, but it's not universal.

 

[Homburg]

Right. But the point is - you wait until she has the capacity to choose what's in her own best interest. To evaluate compatibility for herself, and make decisions accordingly.

Of course. I wasn't calling you out in saying that. Just saying that my sense of honour and conscience would not be bothered by this sort of thing excessively because of how I handle things.

In general, I tend to express interest, and then wait until that interest is strongly reciprocated by a woman before going further. And, probably like yourself, I've turned down drunk sex more times than I can recall.

I think the difference, and may only be in how I'm reading what you say, is that I think that OSG, and people like her, are capable of making their own choices in a matter like this. They simply cannot do so under the sort of pressure OSG is describing. I recognised long ago that I have a certain force of personality, and can be too persuasive for anyone's good at times. So I have deeply ingrained the pattern I listed above into my own behaviour.

If anything, (though I know that you will likely have not had this experience, as it is a cat metaphor) I act like a cat. Many cats will come up to you and let you know they want attention, but won't come those last few inches. They will wait until you reach out, make that move yourself, then they allow the pettings. Once they're familiar with you, sure, they'll assault for the pettings, but early on, you have to make a move.

This behaviour prevents me from taking advantage of people that can't easily say "No." viv is not so unnassertive that I can't leave her alone, but she is one that can't easily express herself with a "no." I don't see this as a flaw, just a difference. It's the same overall concept that some are born to lead, and some are born to follow.

 

[Homburg]

My former therapist did not see it as broken. I know there are plenty of crappy therapists out there, but it's not universal.

Well aware. MIS' previous therapist was one of those that did not see it as a flaw. This is why I said "altogether too many" instead of "all." Having watched her try to find a worthwhile therapist around here, however, I think my phrase is pretty damned valid. There have been FAR many more "Uh, no," responses than maybes or affirmatives. And a recent affirmative turned into nothing but session after session of MIS defending BDSM, masochism, etc.

And I've talked to a lot of other folks that have had similar issues. Many others have had this experience, and this is why the KAP List was born. The very existence of that list supports the idea that the understanding ones are in the minority.