PYL knows best?

[Recidiva]

You've said you don't like anchovies on pizza to a room full of people who will swear that anchovies ARE the pizza dough.

I totally get that!

 

[where]

Get in line! I want to know what JM looks like too.

I don't need to see his face. I just want to objectify him and his chest.

 

[Netzach]

I don't need to see his face. I just want to objectify him and his chest.

+1.

if I can do it, everyone else can do it

Hey, speaking of...

 

[Recidiva]

we have the same issue about when the dog craps everywhere.

Working relationships result in happy people. I'm not going to say that I'm thrilled to clean up cat vomit, but I don't resent it.

I need my vanilla to kink dictionary, because I'm sure at this point I've offended someone for whom vomit is the coolest.

For the masochists:

"I'm not going to say that I'm thrilled about getting a full body massage, but I won't resent it."

 

[midwestyankee]

From the opening post, this thread moved on to a slam-fest against mentor/mentee or shaper/shapee relationships. Not just a series of "that doesn't work for me, personally" posts, but outright condemnation of the dynamic itself. See, most notably, posts 32, 36, and 42.

The reason I wrote the bit you've quoted is that I was trying to make the point that mentor/mentee, shaper/shapee relationships are not always misguided, unhealthy, unsuccessful, danger will robinson, omg the D must be an arrogant prick, christ the s must a ninny, no rational person would enter into such a thing, disasters. THAT is my point, and my only point. Do you agree or disagree?

I understand your point. I've already agreed with your point! But I really don't know why you keep mentioning it, because I don't see anyone here disputing it.

I guess I'm just too dense to follow the reasoning in your posts. I did not see you present an agreement to my point but only a rebuttal.

 

[where]

+1.

if I can do it, everyone else can do it

Hey, speaking of...

treating people like meat is bad, mkay?

 

[teknight]

treating people like meat is bad, mkay?

I treat my meat well. Please don't generalize!

 

[where]

I treat my meat well. Please don't generalize!

do you season before or after? how long on the heat each side?

 

[teknight]

Ahem... I just beat it....

 

[JMohegan]

I guess I'm just too dense to follow the reasoning in your posts. I did not see you present an agreement to my point but only a rebuttal.

I agreed with you in post 61!

Come on, man, don't get all worked up. You're not dense, no one thinks you're dense, including me. If you missed something or I missed something or we've been talking past one another inadvertently, well, that happens.

 

[JMohegan]

+1.

if I can do it, everyone else can do it

Hey, speaking of...

Yeah, hey.... what about that bet you welshed on, woman!

 

[midwestyankee]

I agreed with you in post 61!

Come on, man, don't get all worked up. You're not dense, no one thinks you're dense, including me. If you missed something or I missed something or we've been talking past one another inadvertently, well, that happens.

Forget it. I'm just getting old and forgetful I guess. I completely missed the I agree part and saw only your but this and but that in the same post.

It also hit a hot button for me when you equated nurturing, mentoring, and teaching in that post followed by a snarky "whatever you want to call it." To me, there are clear differences between all of those activities and when you conflate them and then toss off snark, it suggests to me that you don't know the differences and that you don't really give a damn.

 

[JMohegan]

That brings up a question.

My husband's tough, but let's say the cat vomits. It's gonna make him heave. I get to clean it up.

Now...

Does that make him the master of me because he gets to assume I will do so for his benefit?

Does it make him submissive because to heave at kitty vomit and not be able to tolerate it makes him show weakness?

Does that put me in charge because I am the most efficient and less volatile vomit cleaner?

Does it make me submissive because I am always the one to adopt that unpleasant duty?

Mostly I think it means I love him and I'll always do it because it makes him uncomfortable if I don't and puts him in distress.

It's really that simple in the end. I think with that formula, you can't really go wrong.

All loving couples experience moments when they do nice things for each other. That is true, regardless of flavor.

The person in charge is the one who decides who does what in moments of discord, i.e., when the partners disagree or have opposing preferences with regard to what should happen next. Hence the deferring thing.

 

[where]

Ahem... I just beat it....

huh, you buy cheap meat?

 

[JMohegan]

Forget it. I'm just getting old and forgetful I guess. I completely missed the I agree part and saw only your but this and but that in the same post.

It also hit a hot button for me when you equated nurturing, mentoring, and teaching in that post followed by a snarky "whatever you want to call it." To me, there are clear differences between all of those activities and when you conflate them and then toss off snark, it suggests to me that you don't know the differences and that you don't really give a damn.

Jesus.

I wasn't being snarky. I was saying, if you don't like using the word "nurture" as a synonym for educate (as in, option 2 for the verb form here), then pick whatever word fits, for you, in that context.

Sincerely. I'm not invested in the word nurture. If you don't like it, pick your own.

 

[Netzach]

Yeah, hey.... what about that bet you welshed on, woman!

I'm just being MN timely.

 

[Recidiva]

All loving couples experience moments when they do nice things for each other. That is true, regardless of flavor.

The person in charge is the one who decides who does what in moments of discord, i.e., when the partners disagree or have opposing preferences with regard to what should happen next. Hence the deferring thing.

Nobody's in charge here. When there are moments of discord we have discussions and come to something we can both live with. We don't go forward until we come to an accord.

There's occasional anarchy, such that he has a motorcycle, but does not want me to have a meat slicer because it might do me injury. I think that if he can splatter himself all over the highway because of the joy of the road, I can risk cutting off a finger for paper-thin pastrami.

Therefore, there is some level of anarchy and some level of balance and a lot of levels of "Okay, that's fair."

 

[Netzach]

All loving couples experience moments when they do nice things for each other. That is true, regardless of flavor.

The person in charge is the one who decides who does what in moments of discord, i.e., when the partners disagree or have opposing preferences with regard to what should happen next. Hence the deferring thing.

I just don't understand why my entire relationship should be redefined if I say "yeah, ok let's do that" when faced with smartness. But there are those who really would argue that this means I'm not actually in charge and no one who is would ever.

I don't want to have to live in that world in order to consider my relationship other-than-vanilla.

 

[JMohegan]

Nobody's in charge here. When there are moments of discord we have discussions and come to something we can both live with. We don't go forward until we come to an accord.

Very egalitarian! Very non-D/s.

You asked: does that make me/him master, submissive, whatever..... and that's my answer. I, personally, define D/s in those moments of disagreement. What ultimately matters in defining the power dynamic is what happens then.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Nobody's in charge here. When there are moments of discord we have discussions and come to something we can both live with. We don't go forward until we come to an accord.

So, like me, you do not live in a D/s relationship and have no dog in this fight.

(edit) Jinx, JM!

 

[Recidiva]

I just don't understand why my entire relationship should be redefined if I say "yeah, ok let's do that" when faced with smartness. But there are those who really would argue that this means I'm not actually in charge and no one who is would ever.

I don't want to have to live in that world in order to consider my relationship other-than-vanilla.

At least for me, I think that means you're more in charge. I respect the smartness. I respect those that respect the smartness.

What makes being the decider more powerful than being the one with the good idea or the capacity to execute the idea?

But what the hell, I'm vanilla.

 

[Recidiva]

Very egalitarian! Very non-D/s.

You asked: does that make me/him master, submissive, whatever..... and that's my answer. I, personally, define D/s in those moments of disagreement. What ultimately matters in defining the power dynamic is what happens then.

But that's the thing, he absolutely dominates in some areas and I'm a total moron and I'm left in awe. He's dominant not by contract, he's dominant because he's fucking dominant.

It doesn't make everything even, it means that the differences in capacity can be accurately measured by debate and trial by fire.

 

[JMohegan]

I just don't understand why my entire relationship should be redefined if I say "yeah, ok let's do that" when faced with smartness. But there are those who really would argue that this means I'm not actually in charge and no one who is would ever.

I don't want to have to live in that world in order to consider my relationship other-than-vanilla.

I agree. I don't think it should be redefined for that reason.

My control issues are rather, shall we say, pronounced! But that doesn't mean I never agree with a suggestion, acknowledge a reasonable request, or even defer to a partner's judgment when doing so makes sense. That's just silly.

 

[Recidiva]

So, like me, you do not live in a D/s relationship and have no dog in this fight.

(edit) Jinx, JM!

But I have a relationship. There are dominant and submissive aspects to every relationship. Maybe I have a cat in the fight. Or an anchovy.

I think it's more of a switch relationship, really. There are times when he will unquestioningly defer to me and the reverse is also true.

 

[JMohegan]

So, like me, you do not live in a D/s relationship and have no dog in this fight.

(edit) Jinx, JM!

Ha!

*hands Stella a virtual Coke.*

But that's the thing, he absolutely dominates in some areas and I'm a total moron and I'm left in awe. He's dominant not by contract, he's dominant because he's fucking dominant.

It doesn't make everything even, it means that the differences in capacity can be accurately measured by debate and trial by fire.

However you define your relationship is fine with me.

I say that without a trace of snark, or disagreement.

My control issues can't deal with a relationship like yours, but so what? I'm not in your relationship, so it really doesn't matter.