Serious question to men?

[Iamsubmissive]

Right.

And? What happens? Women state what is going on and what a correct answer is and what not. And they defend their position with what kind of attack?

Exactly why I didn't answer the question. I can guess at it, but what good would that do?

But my advice on dealing with the issue would be...walk away, avoid those guys, interact with those who respect you no matter who/what your are. Whether it's a hit to their ego, a challenge to change you, or a test of your seriousness/power, or...whatever may be the case...they obviously aren't anyone you want to associate with anyway. Smile and move on

 

[RubiDia]

Why do you feel the need to try and dominate a Domme?

I don't understand your question.

 

[Primalex]

Sit down and behave yourself and wait, without expectation or entitlement. Like a woman does.

Fixed this for you.

 

[DrDelirium]

Finding someone whose desires fit with ours?

Of course, but that's a process. There are a variety of ways to go about it, that are effective for different people. Everyone has the right to dislike other people's process when it is applied to them, but this doesn't imply a right to prescribe the acceptable process for others. Of all of the ways that people attempt to establish relationships with others, I doubt there are any that are both approved of by everyone and effective for everyone.

 

[DrDelirium]

I was not able to make up my mind yet, because the OP refused to answer my simple questions. I have no idea what kind of behavior she actually complains about, because "the battle commences" is not a useful description.

(Did I mention ambiguous communication already?)

Are you suggesting that there is a difference between, say, telling a self-professed domme that you detect a certain brittleness of demeanor that suggests feelings of insecurity, and that you would be happy to help her explore her submissive side and, say, grabbing her by the hair, forcing her to her knees and demanding that she suck your cock? Because I don't see it.

 

[Primalex]

Are you suggesting that there is a difference between, say, telling a self-professed domme that you detect a certain brittleness of demeanor that suggests feelings of insecurity, and that you would be happy to help her explore her submissive side and, say, grabbing her by the hair, forcing her to her knees and demanding that she suck your cock? Because I don't see it.

You don't see a difference?

Fascinating.

I suggest that you try both approaches and then discuss the result with your criminal defense lawyer.

 

[_Necrosomantic_]

So I get that the unwanted attentions of men may be annoying and sometimes even threatening, but I think it's something that is just going to happen in the nature of things.

Okay. Soooooo what then? Let's just not say anything because it's generally accepted as how things have been and calling it out won't change it because it hasn't? That's an attitude that perpetuates and enables. We're not talking about race, creed, social standing, or levels of education. It's a matter of gender bias, period. It's a simple question of what makes it so terribly different when the same sentence is spoken aloud by a woman instead of a man with a dominant personality.

I'll speak plainly.
Not interested doesn't mean try harder, it means not interested.
No one, male or female, needs to explain or defend their reasons for that beyond the initial statement of disinterest.
It is only via arrogance, a sense of entitlement, and yes, varying degrees chauvinism/misogyny that a man would feel it appropriate to pursue a woman further.
It invalidates them as people.
They, like the world, don't owe anyone anything they don't earn and aren't willing to bleed for.

Also, what, exactly, is the alternative?

The alternative is you go back and get that secondary degree in turd farming, because your primary in convoluted paragraphs that say a lot of nothing, ain't cuttin' it.

Are you suggesting that there is a difference between, say, telling a self-professed domme that you detect a certain brittleness of demeanor that suggests feelings of insecurity, and that you would be happy to help her explore her submissive side and, say, grabbing her by the hair, forcing her to her knees and demanding that she suck your cock? Because I don't see it.

I'll help you.

The former is degrading presumptuous garbage, dreamt up by a sanctimonious jerkoff with delusions of grandeur, and the latter lands you in county for sexual assault. Idiot.

 

[Farawyn]

Fixed this for you.

This actually made me laugh out loud.

 

[DrDelirium]

You don't see a difference?

Fascinating.

I suggest that you try both approaches and then discuss the result with your criminal defense lawyer.

Yeesh. No sensa yuma.

 

[Blue]

Are you suggesting that there is a difference between, say, telling a self-professed domme that you detect a certain brittleness of demeanor that suggests feelings of insecurity, and that you would be happy to help her explore her submissive side and, say, grabbing her by the hair, forcing her to her knees and demanding that she suck your cock? Because I don't see it.

 

[Primalex]

It's a simple question of what makes it so terribly different when the same sentence is spoken aloud by a woman instead of a man with a dominant personality.

There is also a simple answer: nobody believes the woman.
That's the difference.

It is only via arrogance, a sense of entitlement, and yes, varying degrees chauvinism/misogyny that a man would feel it appropriate to pursue a woman further.

That's a very comfortable position. Why bother thinking why it is the way it is? Demonizing is a simple solution and fairly easy on the brain cells.

It invalidates them as people.

Ha. There it is.

 

[DrDelirium]

Okay. Soooooo what then? Let's just not say anything because it's generally accepted as how things have been and calling it out won't change it because it hasn't? That's an attitude that perpetuates and enables. We're not talking about race, creed, social standing, or levels of education. It's a matter of gender bias, period. It's a simple question of what makes it so terribly different when the same sentence is spoken aloud by a woman instead of a man with a dominant personality.

I'll speak plainly.
Not interested doesn't mean try harder, it means not interested.
No one, male or female, needs to explain or defend their reasons for that beyond the initial statement of disinterest.
It is only via arrogance, a sense of entitlement, and yes, varying degrees chauvinism/misogyny that a man would feel it appropriate to pursue a woman further.
It invalidates them as people.
They, like the world, don't owe anyone anything they don't earn and aren't willing to bleed for.


The alternative is you go back and get that secondary degree in turd farming, because your primary in convoluted paragraphs that say a lot of nothing, ain't cuttin' it.



I'll help you.

The former is degrading presumptuous garbage, dreamt up by a sanctimonious jerkoff with delusions of grandeur, and the latter lands you in county for sexual assault. Idiot.

I see that neither reading comprehension or a taste for irony are prevalent around here, so I'll state this as plainly as I can: I do, in fact, understand the difference between assault and boorish behavior, which latter is plentiful here. I also understand that there can be a difference between things that I don't like, deliberate rudeness, threatening behavior and differences in perception or understanding. While I would prefer never to encounter these things, they aren't the same, and I don't feel I have the right insist that everyone adopt the manners that I prefer, or the words, phrases or attitudes that I have myself. So, you can certainly vent your bile as much as you like, but it's not basically different from the behavior you're objecting to, or think you're objecting to, because as Primalex pointed out, the behavior itself has not been clearly defined.
I am not saying what anyone should or should not like, but I think that there fairly easy to understand answers to the OP's question and that grasping them may lead some people to feel less aggravated about a behavior they don't like. Of course, the right to feel aggravated by behavior we don't like is guaranteed us in the constitution, and I don't want anyone to feel that I want to take that away from them. It's a matter of personal taste.

 

[SalvDali]

If my "assholes will be assholes" comment seemed to dismiss the question, that was not my intention. I just feel the question was asked in a forum where the "assholes" who could actually answer the question will not.

If the assholes are not here answering the question, you aren't going to get a real answer. All you are getting are the theories from other PYL/pyl that are our best attempts to explain or defend someone else. We do not know why others act the way they do. I have never pursued someone after they told me they weren't interested.

I don't know why some men are pigs, I don't know why racists are racist. That doesn't mean I condone their actions, just that I don't know why. The question asked was "Why do you..." If you don't then you can't answer the question... because you don't.

 

[_Necrosomantic_]

I see that neither reading comprehension or a taste for irony are prevalent around here, so I'll state this as plainly as I can: I do, in fact, understand the difference between assault and boorish behavior, which latter is plentiful here. I also understand that there can be a difference between things that I don't like, deliberate rudeness, threatening behavior and differences in perception or understanding. While I would prefer never to encounter these things, they aren't the same, and I don't feel I have the right insist that everyone adopt the manners that I prefer, or the words, phrases or attitudes that I have myself. So, you can certainly vent your bile as much as you like, but it's not basically different from the behavior you're objecting to, or think you're objecting to, because as Primalex pointed out, the behavior itself has not been clearly defined.
I am not saying what anyone should or should not like, but I think that there fairly easy to understand answers to the OP's question and that grasping them may lead some people to feel less aggravated about a behavior they don't like. Of course, the right to feel aggravated by behavior we don't like is guaranteed us in the constitution, and I don't want anyone to feel that I want to take that away from them. It's a matter of personal taste.

Yes, because acting sanctimonious after you just put your foot in your mouth helps. I clearly explained what I was objecting to in context of the discussion, whereas you've only just returned to earth from dog metaphor land and landed squarely in overcomplicated bullshitville. No, what you said was, essentially, that there is nothing to be done so why try. Just accept that it's part of life and move on. That's apathetic garbage rhetoric that changes nothing and is the reason ignorance has persisted for so long in this and many other places. Yes, I have a problem with that line of thinking. Yes, I'm comfortable with that. No, I'm not sorry, and I also don't give a flying fuck what sardonic comments you make about my approach.

You're right, it is easy. Again, not interested, means not interested. Everything else that could possibly arise in one's mind to urge them to pursue the matter further, is indicative of a sense of entitlement generally possessed by those that are pathological.

Also, reading comprehension isn't the problem, it's your empty headed attempt at what you claim was clear as day levity, reading more like a degrading and rapey statement. Idiot.

Finally, citing the first amendment only further proves that you have nothing of substance to contribute, outside of a weak attempt to shift the topic to that of censorship in order to deflect from the belligerent shit you just said.

Backward pedaling bicycle, engage!

 

[SissySalina]

Why do you feel the need to try and dominate a Domme?

sissy is not a man and sissy is not allowed to answer "Serious Question" so why is sissy here.

sissy gets confused easily and none of the post seem to answer: why a man has such a large ego that he thinks he can master all.

 

[Farawyn]

sissy is not a man and sissy is not allowed to answer "Serious Question" so why is sissy here.

sissy gets confused easily and none of the post seem to answer: why a man has such a large ego that he thinks he can master all.

I believe that question was answered.

 

[Iamsubmissive]

I believe that question was answered.

Was it? I must have missed it too. Was that answer 'just because'?

 

[Iamsubmissive]

So am I alone in thinking this is all being made very overly complicated?

There's no personal challenges, or ego-battling for higher ranks in the social hierarchy, institutional corporate biases or strange armchair psychology going on. At least to me, this is just basic example number 95,872 of grossly arrogant people who get pissed when their advances get rejected, regardless of whatever their personal preferences are. The asshat thread is full of 'em.

Interesting conversations anyway

I think this was the best answer...

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Bramblethorn]

We're encouraged to think that hard work and persistence will win the day in school, sports, business, war, and what have you. The idea that a man should simply give up at the first rebuff from someone he finds attractive is a pretty new one

*to men

The fact that persistence sometimes does pay off suggests that it's a legitimate strategy even if some people don't like being on the receiving end of it.

Bank robbery sometimes pay off, but that doesn't make it legitimate.

I find it rather disturbing when guys take this position that any chance of getting laid, no matter how small, is an adequate justification for behaviour that causes discomfort to others.

Also, what, exactly, is the alternative?

The alternative to pestering women who've said no... er, I guess going away and not pestering them?

 

[Farawyn]

Was it? I must have missed it too. Was that answer 'just because'?

Oh.
I liked mine.
Sissy may want a different answer.

No one said "just because"
Except Dr.D.

 

[Farawyn]

*to men

 

[Cybermiss]

Since I opened this thread I see it has taken on a life all its own.

It is nice to know there are doms out here that respect a domme. I also see from a few replies examples of what I am seeing. Finally I see those that appear to support the domme.

I have been a lifestyle domme for a number of years. It is something I grew into and I enjoy. I learned a long time ago it is the submissive that really is the one in charge(Thank you Lady Heather). It really wasn't until I got online that I was confronted with men who feel the need to try and dominate me. I saw it manifest in Second Life and I have seen it here. I left Second Life largely due to that.

I will and often do chat with anyone. I am not always the Domme. I have no desire to be. I enjoy the role when I am asked, but I also enjoy being ga kinky borg. I am not and never have been a domme that needs to be abusive. That, in my not so humble opinion, is not what this lifestyle is about.

If I see a conversation going in a 'me being submissive' direction I will say being submissive is not my thing. Yes I usually say I am not submissive. If it persists I usually attempt to ignore whomever. However, I have never been able to handle stupid well. I will leave that right here.

I thank you all for your input.

 

[Primalex]

 

[Cybermiss]

Locutus come to me. Heheh