The Doormat Discussion

[JMohegan]

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.

I appreciate the attempt at clarification, but unfortunately metaphors aren't my strong suit in general - and, as you say, this one in particular is about an animal with which I've never had much interaction.

The part in bold is really the critical point here, as I see it. I understood osg to say that she can *not* choose the ones to whom she submits. She says she does so, as a "reflex," with everyone. If I misunderstood that point, it would alter my response considerably.

 

[intothewoods]

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.

The statement "we're all broken to these people" is what needled me a bit. At any rate, I think it's more that it's just tough to find a good therapist, rather than it's tough to find a good therapist that's kink-accepting. Of course, major metropolitan areas will have more therapists who aren't shocked by kink, bdsm or other alternative lifestyles.

 

[graceanne]

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.

Too many shrinks take their own issues to the table. When my sister went in to handle the issues that arose from her boyfriend blowing his brains out on her bedroom wall, the shrink she saw kept leading the conversation back to her gambling. She's a bartender, and when she works she'll budget five dollars a week to put in the machines. Her shrink felt this showed miss has a gambling addiction. (Even if she did, she wasn't there to address that. She was there to address her boyfriend committing suicide. Idiots.)

 

[ownedsubgal]

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.

YES. this, this exactly. thank you, ataxia.

 

[JMohegan]

Quite honestly I see myself as a doormat, but a medium/smallish one. Not one of those big ones that takes up half the front porch. I don't like confrontation. I don't like making decisions. If I am going out to eat with someone I always defer to them to where they want to go and it upsets me when I have to make the choice. I want to do what they want to do.

However...I have always been like this. It is not something that suddenly came about when I submitted. Nor did it become worse when I entered M/s territory. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

Let me explain. To me, being a doormat is not standing up for yourself to other people. It's keeping yourself hidden from others--bottling up your feelings so as not to hurt other people. Being a doormat is hurting yourself. Master doesn't go for that as if I'm hurting myself I'm not effectively taking care of his property.

Some things are easier to obey than others. But obeying an order is not the same as being a doormat in my book. Especially if the order is to help you from staying a doormat.

For example, I am having a computer issue right now. I have taken the necessary steps to have it resolved, but there is still a small problem. I am content (mostly) to sit and wait for additional contact in email form. However, I've been tasked with calling them. I hate calling, but I will do it because it will make me stronger as a person and less doormat-y.

Forgive the ramblings....

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.

I believe that all people have weaknesses - that is, traits or tendencies that make protecting ourselves or achieving our goals more difficult, relative to others. Of course, the type and severity of weaknesses differ from person to person, but still - we've all got them.

Do I infer correctly, from Millificent's post, above, the you would you describe difficulty saying "no" as a weakness? Not a flaw, but a personal difference to be corrected or overcome to whatever extent is feasible?

 

[Kikori]

YES. this, this exactly. thank you, ataxia.

I'm not sure, though, that the people here have been disagreeing with ataxia's logic.

I believe that all people have weaknesses - that is, traits or tendencies that make protecting ourselves or achieving our goals more difficult, relative to others. Of course, the type and severity of weaknesses differ from person to person, but still - we've all got them.

Do I infer correctly, from Millificent's post, above, the you would you describe difficulty saying "no" as a weakness? Not a flaw, but a personal difference to be corrected or overcome to whatever extent is feasible?

I may be setting myself up to get shot down for this, but it depends on the semantics of "flaw" and "weakness". I'd see a flaw as being inhibited from doing something, while a weakness is more or less a flaw that can be taken advantage of or exploited. To be physically unable to say "no", to allow one's self to get pulled into basically anything due to not knowing how to stand up for one's self, is (in my eyes) a weakness. Predators can take advantage of this and easily take away a victim to be used or abused. I might be over-simplifying again, but it comes back to asking if it's a bad thing (whether for you or for them) or not.

Me? I say no. Flaws can normally be dealt with, worked out, and possibly helped. Weaknesses need to be catered to and not abused.

 

[Bandit58]

Quite honestly I see myself as a doormat, but a medium/smallish one. Not one of those big ones that takes up half the front porch. I don't like confrontation. I don't like making decisions. If I am going out to eat with someone I always defer to them to where they want to go and it upsets me when I have to make the choice. I want to do what they want to do.

However...I have always been like this. It is not something that suddenly came about when I submitted. Nor did it become worse when I entered M/s territory. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

Let me explain. To me, being a doormat is not standing up for yourself to other people. It's keeping yourself hidden from others--bottling up your feelings so as not to hurt other people. Being a doormat is hurting yourself. Master doesn't go for that as if I'm hurting myself I'm not effectively taking care of his property.

Some things are easier to obey than others. But obeying an order is not the same as being a doormat in my book. Especially if the order is to help you from staying a doormat.

For example, I am having a computer issue right now. I have taken the necessary steps to have it resolved, but there is still a small problem. I am content (mostly) to sit and wait for additional contact in email form. However, I've been tasked with calling them. I hate calling, but I will do it because it will make me stronger as a person and less doormat-y.

Forgive the ramblings....

*ding ding* This post rings bells for me.
In my first marriage, I was a doormat. He was a domineering bully who always had to have his own way. I learned to be passive aggressive, in a way to try to protect myself. I shut down. I go silent. I still do this sometimes. Sir hates it, so I try not to but it's hard to unlearn 23 years.

I had terrible self esteem issues both before and during the marriage. It's still being worked on (the 23 year unlearn process ). However I can say no if I need to now. I can make decisions. I've unlearned a lot in the almost six years Sir and I have been together....He jokingly calls me Mistress sometimes, because I can become quite bossy

 

[Homburg]

The part in bold is really the critical point here, as I see it. I understood osg to say that she can *not* choose the ones to whom she submits. She says she does so, as a "reflex," with everyone. If I misunderstood that point, it would alter my response considerably.

I'm having a hard time explaining the take I have on this. OSG, and people like her, are capable of affirmative choices. We all are. If someone says, "Take the chocolate. You will like the chocolate," then her nature may well cause this sort of very submissive person to take the chocolate so as to avoid conflict. But if she is asked, "Would you like chocolate or vanilla?" she is perfectly capable of deciding. And our hypothetical non-assertive person can likewise put him or herself in situations where the outcome will not be pressured.

In the case of a dominant, she can decide that she wants to seek out a particular dominant because of what she has heard about him, or a conversation had. She may not be able to say no, but certainly can pursue that which she would actively want to say "Yes!" to. As OSG said, when she submits to her owner, it is out of love, and with joy if you will.

So the decision can be made. Positive can be sought after. It is just that pressure will cause acquiescence, which makes a "no" all but impossible.

I'm not sure that I am expressing the point as I see it, and don't want to appear like I'm trying to speak for OSG. I'm just trying to explain how I understand this concept.

--

I believe that all people have weaknesses - that is, traits or tendencies that make protecting ourselves or achieving our goals more difficult, relative to others. Of course, the type and severity of weaknesses differ from person to person, but still - we've all got them.

Do I infer correctly, from Millificent's post, above, the you would you describe difficulty saying "no" as a weakness? Not a flaw, but a personal difference to be corrected or overcome to whatever extent is feasible?

It depends. Yes, I know, cop-out answer, but it is a situational thing.

Take, for example, the computer issue she alluded to. Her initial response was to be weak, and passive, and allow the company to contact her at her leisure. This was unacceptable to me, as her computer issue (utterly not her fault, BTW) was disrupting all of us here. And, more unacceptable, it was negatively affecting her mood.

Unfortunately, her personality is such that she would rather suffer in grumpy non-silence than confront the people that support this particular product. And it was not so much even a confrontation. They agreed that the issue was not her fault, and they were going to resolve it. When they wanted to. AW phone call would speed things up, but she HATES to call businesses or really anyone that she does not know well.

The conflict here is that this is simply not how I work, and thus not how I want her to work. As she was disrupting me, I felt that her place was to work diligently to resolve the issue and remove the disruption. Thus she was caught between desire to avoid phone call and desire to avoid poor service. In this case, she rightly opted to prioritise service over hatred of phone calls.

I would not go so far as to say that this is a weakness or flaw. It is a personality quirk, even if it can be a bloody frustrating one. To look more specifically at your question, I do not really see her lack of ability to easily say "no" as a weakness either. I say that, however, because she is in an existing power dynamic, and understands my expectations. She knows me well enough to know the situations where I would want her to say no, and does so. She is not being assertive of her own accord, but the end result is still the same. So in her life, no, it is just a "factor", if you will. She has a coping mechanism in place in our power dynamic, and asking herself "WWHD?"

Were she single, it would be more of an issue. I'm not sure I go with the language of "flaw" or "weakness", but I can honestly think of no better term at this moment. In modern life, with high pressure sales pitches, predatory businesses, and users all over the place, the inability to say "no" leads to being stepped on all too often. But "weakness" and "flaw" both imply that it is something to be corrected, and I can't say that I agree with that. If every person that has trouble with the word "no" were "fixed", my relationships and sex life would be bloody dull indeed.

I guess at the end of the day, I see nothing wrong with someone that needs to be protected. I see nothing wrong with someone that simply cannot lead an independent life. I see nothing wrong with that at all, and realise that, in fact, I consider it a very good thing. Those are the precise sort of people that I am most often attracted strongly too.

In viv's case, I want her to be capable of being stronger and more assertive simply because having the capacity for those traits allows her to provide better service. I have no need of assertive here around the house, but if I send her to get something done, I want it to get done. So it is akin to a skill to learn, not something to attach to her core personality.

 

[Homburg]

The statement "we're all broken to these people" is what needled me a bit.

Why? Given that the "these people" I was referring to were the therapists and such that find BDSM wrong, I don't understand why it would be bothersome. These are the people that put many of the traits we actively enjoy in the DSM books as mental disorders.

 

[ataxia.girl]

I believe that all people have weaknesses - that is, traits or tendencies that make protecting ourselves or achieving our goals more difficult, relative to others. Of course, the type and severity of weaknesses differ from person to person, but still - we've all got them.

Sometimes its just over. Sometimes you are simply done trying to fit the ideal of others, no matter what it is, no matter how healthy it is. In rather un-doormatish fashion i have dug my heals in and simply said "no, this is how i am, deal with it". It makes you feel bad i stay in a situation ill suited for me and then have the audacity to complain about it, get over it. It makes you uncomfortable that real reluctance and non-consent turns me on, get over it. In action i acquiesce, i "do" what is expected but my thoughts and my tongue often remain unconverted. It bothers people. Being that i have already spent the first half of my life trying to make my thoughts\emotions line up with my need to DO what is expected and very much failed i now develop "workarounds" to avoid DOING as much as possible the things which do not align with my thoughts\emotions, occasionally so much so that i no longer have time to contemplate what those thoughts\emotions might really be. i'm so busy dealing with the details of my life i have no time left to sort out what "I" want and ultimately i have not really internalized the idea that it matters. In the grand scheme of things i am unable to make that conclusion, i don't think it does and yet my ego still rebels.

Daddy exploits my inability to displease in action but at the same time nurtures the rebellion in a way that makes me feel whole and accepted. He takes advantage of my need to please, whether it was artificially induced or not, while at the same time encouraging me when i take small steps at drawing lines and boundaries which enable me to be more authentically myself without leaving my situation.

In so many ways i am just too damn tired to fight anymore. A part of me has been broken that will never be repaired and in very un-doormattish fashion i refuse to try.

 

[00Syd]

[Beware: an entire threads-worth of pent up thoughts below]

Reading this thread has made me think a lot about what I've always seen as my own "timidness." I've never thought of myself as a doormat, and am hesitant to apply that label to myself, but throughout this thread I keep coming across traits and anecdotes that are very familiar to me. Throughout the last few days I've become pretty self-aware of my "timidness," the different ways it influences my life, and when and how it shows itself. I've also started to think a lot more (than I already have been) about how my "timidness" is a problem for me.

One of the main things I've come to notice is my reluctance to say "no." For a long time I denied that this was a trait I possessed because I can say "no" and in some situations its actually very easy. This reluctance mainly shows up around Seb, and I'm tempted to say "other men I feel at all submissive to," but that isn't quite right. I have trouble saying "no" to pretty much anyone who I am close to (friends, lovers, loved ones, etc) who has a dominant or even simply a big personality. The only exception that I can think of to this is my parents (of course ). If I really need to, I can say no to just about anyone, but it can be difficult.

Another part of my timidness is indecision. Like others here have expressed, making decisions, even on things as simple as what to eat for dinner, is a struggle. I don't want to make most decisions, and find it exhausting and frustrating when I have to. If I have a particularly strong feeling on something, I certainly won't stay quiet, but more often than not I don't care very much one way or the other and prefer someone else decide.

I'm also very dependent. I don't like being alone, and I've found that when I'm single I'll start talking A LOT with just about any dominant-ish male friend about EVERYTHING, and I've found that I become much more attracted to men who I wouldn't normally glance at, and I'll jump at just about any opportunity for intimacy that comes along. Before Seb, I was dating guy who, towards the end of the relationship, I realized I was only with in order to be with someone. And directly after that I got into a very sexual mentor/mentoree relationship that ended with me feeling very used. I was lucky to find Seb during that time, since he's someone who I actually really love and want to be with, and who I know for a fact isn't at all just a convenient warm body. This sort of desperate, dependent quality really bothers me, and something that I would change if I could, because I foresee it causing me a lot of trouble in the future.

Another main aspect of this that I've realized, really only in the last few days, is my lack of confidence, assuredness, and an over all "go-getter" attitude. I'm one of those people who would rather go through official channels and get very little done very slowly rather than call any phone numbers or go to anyone's office and get in anyone's face, which, I'm coming to realize, is something you often need to do in order to get anything done. I'm TERRIBLE at this. I've spent that last week emailing everyone at my school, trying to get something done, and nothing has happened until yesterday when I finally gathered the courage to make some phone calls. And even then I was only able to really do it after Seb got home (There's that dependence). This is the main thing that I'm trying to change, because my lack of those "go-getter" qualities could seriously hamper any possibility I have of getting into my chosen career.

I recently got quarter-finalist in a script competition and received a letter with a very encouraging note from one of the contest directors. My mother suggested I email him and ask how he got into that position, and what his career has looked like. That's probably a very good idea. and email like that would show interest, and possibly make me a valuable contact for the future. I shrugged off the idea. A few days later she suggested it again, and again I shrugged it off. I don't enjoy putting myself out there. I don't like sending unsolicited emails, because what if I'm overstepping some boundary? What if I'm bothering him? What if this guy already gets a ton of obnoxious ass-kissing emails? But even these are weak excuses, right? I just don't know how to explain how difficult it is to do something like that. It's hard in the same way that its sometimes hard to say no. I'm timid. My mother told me that she just couldn't understand my reluctance to do this sort of thing, and how she found my lack of assertiveness both mystifying and troubling.

How do I explain this to her? How do I explain this to her in such a way that she'll stop being disappointed with me? I know that she see's my timidness, specifically my lack of a "go-getter" attitude, to be a defect. Something that is broken that needs to be fixed. I know that the popular opinion here on this thread would be that I'm not broken, and I agree that I'm not broken, but I do think that I need to be fixed, or at least get a new coat of paint to hide under.

What's shitty is that my dreams and aspirations don't exactly align themselves with my characteristics. Life would probably be easiest for me if I married rich (or at least wealthy) and was able to focus on hobbies and house-keeping and other relatively pressure-free things that I know I can do, but I don't want to be a housewife. I want to be a screenwriter, and help make movies and television shows, and I want to be successful and admired. This is going to be incredibly difficult for me. I am trying to change these qualities as much as a I can, not because I think they are bad, or unhealthy, or broken, but because I know that they could be a gigantic roadblock in my life. There are things I want to do, and the only way to make anything happen in that direction is to change my "timidness," or at least learn to ignore it.

 

[intothewoods]

Why? Given that the "these people" I was referring to were the therapists and such that find BDSM wrong, I don't understand why it would be bothersome. These are the people that put many of the traits we actively enjoy in the DSM books as mental disorders.

Yes, with that clarification, the sentence is fine. It would be interesting to know the percentage of psychologists and pscyhiatrists who think bdsm is a disorder, absent indicia of unhealthy life choices overall.

This thread reminds me of a book I read recently: Other Side of Desire. We don't know what flips the desire switch on, regardless of what that desire is - s&m, missionary sex, foot fetishes, etc. The author profiled a pedophile, foot fetishist, dominatrix and paraphiliac. One of the themes is what we can change about ourselves and whether or not we should change it. When is desire unhealthy? I found the book disappointing, since it really just skimmed the surface of the subject, but the scientists who study brain chemistry and desire were really interesting. Anyway, it kind of relates to this thread except we're discussing personality traits instead of sexual desires.

 

[intothewoods]

I'm also indecisive, don't like confrontation, have a lot of issues with self-doubt and am not naturally a go-getter. I developed ways to cope. So is the difference between myself and a self-identified doormat that I did this on my own rather than at the direction of another person? These changes didn't happen for me in a vacuum though.

 

[JMohegan]

I'm having a hard time explaining the take I have on this. OSG, and people like her, are capable of affirmative choices. We all are. If someone says, "Take the chocolate. You will like the chocolate," then her nature may well cause this sort of very submissive person to take the chocolate so as to avoid conflict. But if she is asked, "Would you like chocolate or vanilla?" she is perfectly capable of deciding. And our hypothetical non-assertive person can likewise put him or herself in situations where the outcome will not be pressured.

In the case of a dominant, she can decide that she wants to seek out a particular dominant because of what she has heard about him, or a conversation had. She may not be able to say no, but certainly can pursue that which she would actively want to say "Yes!" to. As OSG said, when she submits to her owner, it is out of love, and with joy if you will.

So the decision can be made. Positive can be sought after. It is just that pressure will cause acquiescence, which makes a "no" all but impossible.

I'm not sure that I am expressing the point as I see it, and don't want to appear like I'm trying to speak for OSG. I'm just trying to explain how I understand this concept.

The distinction between your flavor questions helps me understand where you're coming from with this.

Both sides actively, consciously, selectively choosing to commit to each other, and remain with each other, is the ethical key as I see it.

It depends. Yes, I know, cop-out answer, but it is a situational thing.

Take, for example, the computer issue she alluded to. Her initial response was to be weak, and passive, and allow the company to contact her at her leisure. This was unacceptable to me, as her computer issue (utterly not her fault, BTW) was disrupting all of us here. And, more unacceptable, it was negatively affecting her mood.

Unfortunately, her personality is such that she would rather suffer in grumpy non-silence than confront the people that support this particular product. And it was not so much even a confrontation. They agreed that the issue was not her fault, and they were going to resolve it. When they wanted to. AW phone call would speed things up, but she HATES to call businesses or really anyone that she does not know well.

The conflict here is that this is simply not how I work, and thus not how I want her to work. As she was disrupting me, I felt that her place was to work diligently to resolve the issue and remove the disruption. Thus she was caught between desire to avoid phone call and desire to avoid poor service. In this case, she rightly opted to prioritise service over hatred of phone calls.

I would not go so far as to say that this is a weakness or flaw. It is a personality quirk, even if it can be a bloody frustrating one. To look more specifically at your question, I do not really see her lack of ability to easily say "no" as a weakness either. I say that, however, because she is in an existing power dynamic, and understands my expectations. She knows me well enough to know the situations where I would want her to say no, and does so. She is not being assertive of her own accord, but the end result is still the same. So in her life, no, it is just a "factor", if you will. She has a coping mechanism in place in our power dynamic, and asking herself "WWHD?"

WWHD - ha! I get this. I get it completely.

And it's making me smile, because it takes me back to the years when my buddies and I would ask ourselves, and each other: What would Coach do? When we knew the answer to that question, then that's what we would do. Even if it was hard, even if we really didn't want to, even if it went against our strongest inclinations. Coach standard was our standard, and everything else was secondary to that one basic fact.

Deference to the Coach standard resulted not from an inability to say "no," but rather from a profound respect for the man himself.

Were she single, it would be more of an issue. I'm not sure I go with the language of "flaw" or "weakness", but I can honestly think of no better term at this moment. In modern life, with high pressure sales pitches, predatory businesses, and users all over the place, the inability to say "no" leads to being stepped on all too often. But "weakness" and "flaw" both imply that it is something to be corrected, and I can't say that I agree with that. If every person that has trouble with the word "no" were "fixed", my relationships and sex life would be bloody dull indeed.

I guess at the end of the day, I see nothing wrong with someone that needs to be protected. I see nothing wrong with someone that simply cannot lead an independent life. I see nothing wrong with that at all, and realise that, in fact, I consider it a very good thing. Those are the precise sort of people that I am most often attracted strongly too.

In viv's case, I want her to be capable of being stronger and more assertive simply because having the capacity for those traits allows her to provide better service. I have no need of assertive here around the house, but if I send her to get something done, I want it to get done. So it is akin to a skill to learn, not something to attach to her core personality.

This is the part to which I can not relate. Innate inability to say "no" is just not something I find arousing.

 

[Homburg]

The distinction between your flavor questions helps me understand where you're coming from with this.

Both sides actively, consciously, selectively choosing to commit to each other, and remain with each other, is the ethical key as I see it.

I'm glad that my explanation worked. It was tough to write that response simply because these are the sort of things that are really difficult to verbalise. Language gets tricky and definitions get thin, precise, and malleable.

WWHD - ha! I get this. I get it completely.

And it's making me smile, because it takes me back to the years when my buddies and I would ask ourselves, and each other: What would Coach do? When we knew the answer to that question, then that's what we would do. Even if it was hard, even if we really didn't want to, even if it went against our strongest inclinations. Coach standard was our standard, and everything else was secondary to that one basic fact.

Deference to the Coach standard resulted not from an inability to say "no," but rather from a profound respect for the man himself.

You've mentioned your Coach many times, and I really enjoy those anecdotes. He must have been a truly incredible man to have had such a profound and lasting effect.

This is the part to which I can not relate. Innate inability to say "no" is just not something I find arousing.

*nod* I can understand that. I class it in the same way that I don't find prostate play arousing. Just not my thing.

I'm not sure that I could explain why I enjoy it so without lapsing into poetic language. Suffice to say that it hits so very many of my buttons on a number of different levels.

 

[00Syd]

I'm also indecisive, don't like confrontation, have a lot of issues with self-doubt and am not naturally a go-getter. I developed ways to cope. So is the difference between myself and a self-identified doormat that I did this on my own rather than at the direction of another person? These changes didn't happen for me in a vacuum though.

I don't know what the difference between what you (and I) describe and a doormat. Despite all of the clarifications of "doormat" in this thread, I'm still a bit confused by the term. Maybe the ability, (and maybe the the desire?) to change is what separates doormats from people who are merely "timid." But I don't really know. Maybe I am a doormat and just reluctant to use the term because of feelings lingering from my previously negative definition of the word. Maybe because I still don't enjoy these traits in myself, despite the assurances that they are not defects.

 

[ataxia.girl]

i think part of it is just evolution and genetics. There was a time when the smartest mate for a woman to choose was the guy who took everyone else out. He offered the best chance of survival. i fully believe its harder for women in general to say no than it is for men. Some women have zero problem with it but i think they are of a significantly lower proportion of all women than men who have no problems saying no. Not saying no and simply gravitating to the strongest, toughest, most politically savvy guy was a survival tactic women no longer need now that they can take care of themselves. Being able to choose when\if to get pregnant and bear children is a big part of this along with all the other opportunities now afforded women which i think it should be remembered are relatively recent developments when taking all of human history into a account.

What bothers me are men who seem to feel they can pick and choose what more traditionally masculine qualities a woman ought to have. When i think about it logically i know they have a right to decide for themselves what they want in a partner and i understand that some of these traits really are just outdated and ill suited for modern society.

Some of the things Syd talks about having trouble with i have had huge problems with in my life. For most of my life i had an extremely hard time talking to anyone in any kind of official function. It was just ridiculously hard for me to the point of panic attacks to pay a library fine. i have no idea where that came from and i have largely overcome it and am now able to function very well but it took a long time. i have worked for the same company for a decade and i suspect will never leave simply because i don't think i could stomach trying to rebuild a reputation and pool of relationships to draw on to get the job done.

There is still this very core part of me that is just terrified of other people and life in general and i basically cannot feel loved or accepted unless it is acknowledged and cared for by a dominant personality. If i have to put on a show of independence and strength for the person i am romantically involved with i cannot accept their love because i don't believe they love me. They love the mask i show the world. Unless i truly believe they want what is underneath the mask more than the mask itself i can never be comfortable being with them.

i have the successful career and i am quite ambitious about it. Men are definitely attracted to the image they see of successful independent woman. i have no use for these guys. They are not attractive to me at all because they don't really see me. They see what they want to see. They eat up the me i have created to please the world, not the me that i am.

i will say though that i am glad to have this hard shell of protection. It is a burden sometimes but for the most part i have learned how to use it to my benefit and then cast it aside when it gets to be too much. When it comes to anything sexual however EVERYTHING is too much. my go-getter, knows what she wants and goes for it persona to whom so many men are attracted just does not function on a sexual level AT ALL.

 

[graceanne]

I don't know what the difference between what you (and I) describe and a doormat. Despite all of the clarifications of "doormat" in this thread, I'm still a bit confused by the term. Maybe the ability, (and maybe the the desire?) to change is what separates doormats from people who are merely "timid." But I don't really know. Maybe I am a doormat and just reluctant to use the term because of feelings lingering from my previously negative definition of the word. Maybe because I still don't enjoy these traits in myself, despite the assurances that they are not defects.

I think that how you describe doormat is all that's really important. Do you consider yourself a doormat? Because how you (and/or your PYL) think of yourself is all that's really important.

I do not consider myself a doormat. For one, I'm very social. I don't give out that victim vibe. I don't like saying no, but will and very loudly and forcefully. I'm decisive, but don't generally care if someone wants to another way. Some would say I'm easy going; that depends on which 'side' of me you're seeing.

But, I defer to my husband. I have no issues with staying home and letting him handle the 'man' duties. I believe that a woman should submit to their husband. (I don't care if you don't believe that - I AM NOT going to get into an argument about this.) So by some people's definition, I'm a doormat.

Do I care that some would call me a doormat? Nope. Don't give a damn. (And yet another reason I don't consider myself a doormat.) Why? Because it's only mine and K's definition of doormat that counts.

You are NOT going to come to definition of doormat that everyone agrees on. This discussion is rapidly becoming like all those discussions of 'what's a slave?' and 'what's a master?'. Except, hopefully, we'll avoid the pissed off people, and the iggy's people, and the cusswords.

 

[Homburg]

Men are definitely attracted to the image they see of successful independent woman.

I think sometimes this is due to aversion to responsibility. They see the independent career-minded woman as emotionally self-sufficient. This lowers potential demand on them for emotional support. She is also financially independent, thus leaving them, in theory, more discretionary funds what might have been spent supporting a more dependent partner.

His verbiage may claim that a career-minded person is a "better match", but the all too common reality is that he does not want to be burdened.

 

[ataxia.girl]

The part in bold is really the critical point here, as I see it. I understood osg to say that she can *not* choose the ones to whom she submits. She says she does so, as a "reflex," with everyone. If I misunderstood that point, it would alter my response considerably.

Not to put words in OSG's mouth but i believe i remember a previous post of hers in an old thread in which she said that while she cannot really resist sexual advances in the moment she can and did choose her Owner very carefully.

 

[00Syd]

I think that how you describe doormat is all that's really important. Do you consider yourself a doormat? Because how you (and/or your PYL) think of yourself is all that's really important.

I do not consider myself a doormat. For one, I'm very social. I don't give out that victim vibe. I don't like saying no, but will and very loudly and forcefully. I'm decisive, but don't generally care if someone wants to another way. Some would say I'm easy going; that depends on which 'side' of me you're seeing.

But, I defer to my husband. I have no issues with staying home and letting him handle the 'man' duties. I believe that a woman should submit to their husband. (I don't care if you don't believe that - I AM NOT going to get into an argument about this.) So by some people's definition, I'm a doormat.

Do I care that some would call me a doormat? Nope. Don't give a damn. (And yet another reason I don't consider myself a doormat.) Why? Because it's only mine and K's definition of doormat that counts.

You are NOT going to come to definition of doormat that everyone agrees on. This discussion is rapidly becoming like all those discussions of 'what's a slave?' and 'what's a master?'. Except, hopefully, we'll avoid the pissed off people, and the iggy's people, and the cusswords.

That's a very good way to think about it all I sometimes (and by "sometimes" I actually mean "very often") get too focused on abstract "what am I?" questions which always end with me trying to be what I think I'm SUPPOSED to be, not what I am.

I don't give off a victim vibe either, and while I think my personality can be very timid, I wouldn't describe my personality as a particularly submissive one. And wasn't the term "service-oriented" thrown into this discussion a few times? Yeah, I'm not service oriented at all. I guess I just started to think too much about how I am similar to a doormat, and not enough about the rest of me and about how I feel (as vague as that is). I don't feel like a doormat. I feel like a deer in the headlights sometimes, but not a doormat.

 

[ownedsubgal]

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.

JMohegan, you have not frustrated or infuriated me...hopefully i have not frustrated you either in your attempts to make yourself understood. it is okay really, i understand that you are not viewing me as a person in a negative light, nor my Master. i also understand that likely our M/s relationship goes against your own personal ethical code...but that is okay too.

what i'd like to make clear is that despite my doormatishness, i am capable of giving valid consent. to the naked eye it may look no different when i submit to my Master's will and when i submit to a stranger wanting money, sex, a favor, whatever. but to him and i the difference has always been clear.

He will often tell friends of the night we first met, when after dinner and comfortable conversation we had made plans to stay in the same hotel room together, in separate beds. i was wrapped securely in my flannel teddy bear-themed pjs, never for a moment thinking anything sexual might take place. then after some hours out of the blue he calls over to me, "come over here and suck my dick." i was like whaaaaa?? but instinctively i moved to do as he said, my mind racing with questions...why? where did this come from? was he planning this all along? has he ever mentioned anything before about how he likes his dick sucked? lol. and much later he answered those questions for me. no, he had not been planning to touch me sexually. He met with only the most pure and honorable of intentions...but he says something about my submissiveness and timid manner just lit a spark in him, and he was unable to hold himself back. when he told me to suck his dick, he was expecting at the very least some hesitation and questioning. what he was not expecting was for me to say nothing and instantly obey. that only served to further ignite the flames, and he says he knew at that moment he had to own me.

and what amazed me most about that night? the fact that i really wanted to serve and please him, that i really wanted to make him happy. while i have always submitted reflexively, previously it was always coupled with resentment or sadness or even anger. but there was none of that darkness with him...for the first time i felt eager to please and not simply driven to please.

and that is why, when a month later he asked me the question, "will you be my property? will you give your life to me?" i was able to say "yes!" of my own conscious choice and free will, perhaps for the first time ever.

 

[JMohegan]

I'm also indecisive, don't like confrontation, have a lot of issues with self-doubt and am not naturally a go-getter. I developed ways to cope. So is the difference between myself and a self-identified doormat that I did this on my own rather than at the direction of another person? These changes didn't happen for me in a vacuum though.

Most people struggle with the issues you mention at some point or other, albeit in varying degrees. Most people are also exhorted by parents, teachers, mentors, or peers to address those issues and learn to cope with them - the goal being the development of self-sufficient, responsible adults.

One reason these conversations become so difficult is that there IS such a thing as laziness. There IS such a thing as willful abdication of personal responsibility. There IS such a thing as failure that results from simple ignorance as to which coping mechanisms might work.

Can't and won't are two different things. If I understand the definitions put forth, it seems people on this thread generally define doormat as someone whose issues with self-assertion are solidly placed near the "can't" end of that spectrum.

 

[Homburg]

Can't and won't are two different things. If I understand the definitions put forth, it seems people on this thread generally define doormat as someone whose issues with self-assertion are solidly placed near the "can't" end of that spectrum.

Solid, yes. This is how I tend to see the underpinnings of the term.

 

[ownedsubgal]

The part in bold is really the critical point here, as I see it. I understood osg to say that she can *not* choose the ones to whom she submits. She says she does so, as a "reflex," with everyone.

this is truth. but while i may not be able to choose to whom i submit, i can certainly choose to whom i give myself. i did not initially choose to submit to my Master, but i chose to give myself, my whole self and all i could ever be, to him. had someone else come along and snatched me up instead...they would have owned nothing more than an empty shell.