Serious question to men?

[ShyMaleSub]

Locutus come to me. Heheh

I'd really like to come to you, but can I skip the assimilation?

 

[just4friends]

Locutus come to me. Heheh

?? Picard, ordering Locutus?
"Jean-Luke (?) you may cum after you clean Mr. Data's mess from me"

 

[Primalex]

I guess the good thing about this thread is that I nailed it again.


As the OP turned out be a boring dumbfuck (an assessment that is based upon the participation in the thread), let me add some more things.

"Yo babe, I'm a dominant, serve me sexually!"
"I'm not a submissive."

is in my opinion one of the worst possible replies if you intend to end the communication. Basically, because this is true for any kind of female-male conversation about any topic, making a negative statement about something that is only mildly related to the topic, never leads to the guy giving up. And I will even agree with HisArpy - it's a challenge - not about domination, but about logic and skill.

"We should head to the beach!"
"Nah, the water is not warm enough."

You can bet that 9 out of 10 times the guy will check the water temperature next. That's the way we tick. And even if she says the truth, because there are fucking snowflakes falling, it doesn't matter, because the reply will then be:"Well, we don't need to swim."

If you want to say:"I don't like to go to the beach, I feel fat today and you are staring at the girls with bigger tits all the time without paying attention to me, which kills the rest of the self-confidence I have.", then fucking do it and don't go:"I don't know...if it's really important for you....I would like to do the laundry today...".

Rant over.

 

[HisArpy]

I guess the good thing about this thread is that I nailed it again.


As the OP turned out be a boring dumbfuck (an assessment that is based upon the participation in the thread), let me add some more things.

"Yo babe, I'm a dominant, serve me sexually!"
"I'm not a submissive."

is in my opinion one of the worst possible replies if you intend to end the communication. Basically, because this is true for any kind of female-male conversation about any topic, making a negative statement about something that is only mildly related to the topic, never leads to the guy giving up. And I will even agree with HisArpy - it's a challenge - not about domination, but about logic and skill.

"We should head to the beach!"
"Nah, the water is not warm enough."

You can bet that 9 out of 10 times the guy will check the water temperature next. That's the way we tick. And even if she says the truth, because there are fucking snowflakes falling, it doesn't matter, because the reply will then be:"Well, we don't need to swim."

If you want to say:"I don't like to go to the beach, I feel fat today and you are staring at the girls with bigger tits all the time without paying attention to me, which kills the rest of the self-confidence I have.", then fucking do it and don't go:"I don't know...if it's really important for you....I would like to do the laundry today...".

Rant over.

It's worse than that. We've ended up with 4 pages of mostly nonsense because:

A. Most of those who posted aren't men.
B. Most of those who posted aren't dominant.
c. Most of those who posted don't understand that dominance doesn't start and end at the bedroom door.

I am tired and have had a very long tough day so maybe I shouldn't say this but...

I am dominant. EVERYTHING I do is based on that in some manner either consciously or not. I am stronger than you are. I am smarter than you are. I am more aggressive. I am more capable. I'm less likely to let you get away with anything. And so on.

I'm not going to believe you when you tell me something different like "I am not submissive" because to me you are. Even the very statement REEKS of it. So, when you blithely toss that kind of thing out there, you'd better expect a dominant, of either gender, to consider whether you truly mean it.

Some will take it at face value because either they believe the reward at the end of testing the truth of your denial isn't worth the effort or they are less dominant. But there will be some who won't take your crap and who WILL take you on over it regardless of the score at the end. And guess what; you walked away. You LOST the contest you claimed mastery in. There's a word for that. Submissive. Because when push came to shove, you ran for the door.

Most men understand this. Maybe not intellectually, but we spend years in the bachelor group learning how to play this game.

 

[MeekMe]

LMAO

Uh-huh...

 

[cascadiabound]

I am dominant. EVERYTHING I do is based on that in some manner either consciously or not. I am stronger than you are. I am smarter than you are. I am more aggressive. I am more capable. I'm less likely to let you get away with anything. And so on.

LMAO

Uh-huh...

I'm with MeekMe on this one.

 

[Primalex]

I am dominant. EVERYTHING I do is based on that in some manner either consciously or not. I am stronger than you are. I am smarter than you are. I am more aggressive. I am more capable. I'm less likely to let you get away with anything. And so on.

I think you mix up dominance with pathological egomania.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[ToPleaseHim]

It's worse than that. We've ended up with 4 pages of mostly nonsense because:

A. Most of those who posted aren't men.
B. Most of those who posted aren't dominant.
c. Most of those who posted don't understand that dominance doesn't start and end at the bedroom door.

I am tired and have had a very long tough day so maybe I shouldn't say this but...

I am dominant. EVERYTHING I do is based on that in some manner either consciously or not. I am stronger than you are. I am smarter than you are. I am more aggressive. I am more capable. I'm less likely to let you get away with anything. And so on.

I'm not going to believe you when you tell me something different like "I am not submissive" because to me you are. Even the very statement REEKS of it. So, when you blithely toss that kind of thing out there, you'd better expect a dominant, of either gender, to consider whether you truly mean it.

Some will take it at face value because either they believe the reward at the end of testing the truth of your denial isn't worth the effort or they are less dominant. But there will be some who won't take your crap and who WILL take you on over it regardless of the score at the end. And guess what; you walked away. You LOST the contest you claimed mastery in. There's a word for that. Submissive. Because when push came to shove, you ran for the door.

Most men understand this. Maybe not intellectually, but we spend years in the bachelor group learning how to play this game.

I have read this thread and not found much reason to participate, although multiple timesI nearly directed a response at the OP. I detest the message of the OP and the fact that it's simply directed to "men."

However, Hisarpy, your post has struck a nerve for me. Do you believe that because you are dominant that you have some sort of right to dominate others even if they are telling you they don't want to submit?

 

[Primalex]

However, Hisarpy, your post has struck a nerve for me. Do you believe that because you are dominant that you have some sort of right to dominate others even if they are telling you they don't want to submit?

You use a specific yet ambiguous situation for your question.

It is the natural state that the other side is not submitting. You are not doing what other people say just because they say something, right? Not even if you see yourself as submissive.

Any contact always starts with someone who doesn't feel the need to submit and someone who tries to dominate.

What you are talking here about is what you feel is the correct moment to end the communication (for the woman to not feel uncomfortable). This is not that much related to BDSM though.

"Can I buy you a drink?"
"I'm still good, thanks."

So, when we watch how this interaction continues to unfold, when do we start to apply labels like persistent, obnoxious, ...? Is he allowed to approach her 20 minutes later with:"Hey, my offer still stands."? (I specifically didn't let her say:'No'.)

And what if she accepts the second time because she thinks he is actually a nice guy? Does the result justify the action? Why or why not?

 

[Blue]

[#110]

HisArpy's post clearly isn't just an explanation of pick-up tactics to use at bars though, and it's not relevant to what you were saying about the success rate of being persistent...It's a Freudian application of animalistic social hierarchy to human courtship. At the very least his use of 'submissive' and 'dominant' are certainly being used as an animal sociologist would use them and not in the typical sense we use here.

E.g. in the final paragraph he writes that men who don't challenge and metaphorically fight a woman's statement of "I'm not submissive" are "less dominant". And then says that if another man does question the validity of the woman's statement and she doesn't get in a debate over it then that means she's 'submissive'..As opposed to the first man just believing her and moving on, and she not wanting to argue her sexuality with some stranger, the second man. And I notice an abundant lack of acknowledgement of those possibilities by HisArpy.

And based on the rest of the post I would say it's so that he can insert some megalomaniacal bragging about how he's the alpha-wolf.

 

[Primalex]

HisArpy's post clearly isn't just an explanation of pick-up tactics to use at bars though, and it's not relevant to what you were saying about the success rate of being persistent...It's a Freudian application of animalistic social hierarchy to human courtship. At the very least his use of 'submissive' and 'dominant' are certainly being used as an animal sociologist would use them and not in the typical sense we use here.

What does this has to do with my posting?
I replied to TPH - and TPHs context was clearly BDSM.

 

[Blue]

What does this has to do with my posting?
I replied to TPH - and TPHs context was clearly BDSM.

Maybe I've misunderstood then, I thought you were trying to bolster what HisArpy posted.

 

[phil_o]

Let me rephrase my question. My question was too encompassing.

Why a good share of Doms always feel the need to dominate a Domme?

Yes it happens to me all the time and they get pissy when I tell them I am not, not do I want to be submissive..

Just trying to understand. If a man tells me he's a Dom i will immediately and politely tell them I am not submissive. In a great number of cases the battle will commence. I usually will ignore the battle cry.

I think I know a lot of guys that would see this as a challenge, who can dom who, how could a girl not want to be dommed by a bloke even if she was a domme herself.

 

[Kitschshaman]

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.

If I might be able to put in one more thought ... those Doms that insisted upon trying to dominate you even though you have clearly stated you are not a submissive do not possess basic human respect. If the submissive doesn't submit willingly the magic of the whole situation falls apart. I would posit that Doms such as that don't respect their subs, let alone a person who chooses not to be dominated. A Dom/Domme must respect their sub if there's to be communication and accurate communication is paramount.
Just a thought.

 

[_Necrosomantic_]

-Tantrum-

Oh! I love satire, especially when it's self aware.

Next, do one about how women be shoppin'.

What you are talking here about is what you feel is the correct moment to end the communication (for the woman to not feel uncomfortable). This is not that much related to BDSM though.

While it's not exclusive, I wouldn't say it's unrelated, especially in the context of what she's responding to. If anything, the question of whether or not having a dominant personality justifies pushy or unwanted attention is pretty relevant. Particularly given OPs original question about why her response is interpreted as a challenge as opposed to a statement to be taken at face value.
No, you don't turn off or stop being what you are just because you are outside of the bedroom, but pompously stomping around and crying about how you're tougher than everyone isn't being domninant, it's compensating.

"Can I buy you a drink?"
"I'm still good, thanks."

So, when we watch how this interaction continues to unfold, when do we start to apply labels like persistent, obnoxious, ...? Is he allowed to approach her 20 minutes later with:"Hey, my offer still stands."? (I specifically didn't let her say:'No'.)

And what if she accepts the second time because she thinks he is actually a nice guy? Does the result justify the action? Why or why not?

" We "? There is no we, only Zool, and in the situation you pose, Zool just ended it. At this point, we are discussing individual opinion about what is acceptable. There is no consensus, aside from what has been previously said, it's subjective. When it becomes unwanted, that's it. As for it being interpreted as a " flexible no " by the guy because she didn't give a blunt refusal, that's rather egocentric. You don't have to be rude when expressing disinterest, that doesn't mean someone is purposely being equivocal, just that there's no call for it. At the same time, politeness isn't a social snooze button, she didn't say " come back later ". She said no in a nice way.

sub·text
ˈsəbˌtekst/
noun
an underlying and often distinct theme in a piece of writing or conversation.
Example:
Man:" Can I buy you a drink?" ( I'm attracted to you )

Woman:" I'm still good, thanks." ( I'm not interested )

de·lu·sion·al
dəˈlo͞oZH(ə)nəl/
adjective
1.characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
2.based on or having faulty judgment; mistaken.
Example:
Man:" Can I buy you a drink?" ( I'm attracted to you, and I know you are to me, which is why I'm sticking around. You will recognize and stand in awe of my devastating handsomeness, bow before my alpha male personality I could tell you wanted to hear all about without asking, and marvel at my conviction as I stare down anyone else who approaches you, letting them know that the lady is taken. Thus soundly wooeing you by last call )

Woman:" I'm still good, thanks." ( But don't leave, you're so great and I just need time to adjust and build up the confidence to stand in your overwhelmingly handsome and masculine presence. Please, stare at me from across the bar all night and keep approaching me every 10-15 minutes depending on what you decide no matter how uncomfortable I seem to get, how could I not want you hero!?! * Sketches harlequin romance cover on her napkin featuring the two of you on a beach, embracing her roughly in the salt spray *)

 

[Farawyn]

Necro, you are pretty Fucking funny.

However, what is even funnier? HisArpy's chest beating!!!
I mean, if it wasn't so pathetic.

 

[Farawyn]

HisArpy's post clearly isn't just an explanation of pick-up tactics to use at bars though, and it's not relevant to what you were saying about the success rate of being persistent...It's a Freudian application of animalistic social hierarchy to human courtship. At the very least his use of 'submissive' and 'dominant' are certainly being used as an animal sociologist would use them and not in the typical sense we use here.

E.g. in the final paragraph he writes that men who don't challenge and metaphorically fight a woman's statement of "I'm not submissive" are "less dominant". And then says that if another man does question the validity of the woman's statement and she doesn't get in a debate over it then that means she's 'submissive'..As opposed to the first man just believing her and moving on, and she not wanting to argue her sexuality with some stranger, the second man. And I notice an abundant lack of acknowledgement of those possibilities by HisArpy.

And based on the rest of the post I would say it's so that he can insert some megalomaniacal bragging about how he's the alpha-wolf.

The term Alpha Douche seems more appropriate.

 

[cascadiabound]

If I might be able to put in one more thought ... those Doms that insisted upon trying to dominate you even though you have clearly stated you are not a submissive do not possess basic human respect. If the submissive doesn't submit willingly the magic of the whole situation falls apart. I would posit that Doms such as that don't respect their subs, let alone a person who chooses not to be dominated. A Dom/Domme must respect their sub if there's to be communication and accurate communication is paramount.
Just a thought.

Bold added for emphasis. This seems right to me.

 

[Adder4321]

In regards to the OP, I think that a lot of men who enjoy the idea of a dominant woman, aren't actually submissive themselves. Or they just have a lot of trouble admitting it. I mean, there's a big difference between watching porn and actually having a woman demand that you follow her every command.

 

[coati]

In regards to the OP, I think that a lot of men who enjoy the idea of a dominant woman, aren't actually submissive themselves. Or they just have a lot of trouble admitting it. I mean, there's a big difference between watching porn and actually having a woman demand that you follow her every command.

The true Domme of my life taught me a very important lesson. When it became apparent to her that I really was not willing to submit, that I liked the idea of submitting more than the act, she cut off all communication with me. Forever.

I have felt the pain of this lesson every day for the last 13 years, and I continue to seek submission in other sexual encounters with women and men. But I miss listening to her, the love of my life.

So, this mysterious and compelling woman did prevail as a Domme.

 

[Primalex]

While it's not exclusive, I wouldn't say it's unrelated,

I wouldn't either and so I didn't.

If anything, the question of whether or not having a dominant personality justifies pushy or unwanted attention is pretty relevant. Particularly given OPs original question about why her response is interpreted as a challenge as opposed to a statement to be taken at face value.

First, the question whether pushy or unwanted attention is abusive or when it becomes abusive is pretty relevant. It would be absurd if the same behavior would become acceptable the very moment the "perpetrator" stops using the label 'dominant'.

Second, it was not the thesis of the OP that her response is taken as a challenge.

Third, there is no mutual exclusion where you hint that there is one - I can truly believe her statement "I'm not a submissive." and still try to get her laid. This is not at all absurd. At least, I don't think I'm very special in the ability to have satisfying sex with non-submissive women.

No, you don't turn off or stop being what you are just because you are outside of the bedroom, but pompously stomping around and crying about how you're tougher than everyone isn't being domninant, it's compensating.

I don't like to claim mental issues for every kind of undesired behavior. I have no idea if Trump (or HisArpy) needs to compensate something. I don't run around and claim that extreme submissives must have a pathological lack of self-confidence. So I abstain from doing this for dominants and their actions, too.

At this point, we are discussing individual opinion about what is acceptable.

We entered the realm of individual opinion with TPHs question of what is acceptable -yes. (Or rather her disgusted statement of what cannot be as disguised question.)

As for it being interpreted as a " flexible no " by the guy because she didn't give a blunt refusal, that's rather egocentric. You don't have to be rude when expressing disinterest, that doesn't mean someone is purposely being equivocal, just that there's no call for it. At the same time, politeness isn't a social snooze button, she didn't say " come back later ". She said no in a nice way.

Maybe terrible communication is no ejection seat, where you can express nothing with your words and then insist that nothingness must be able to get you out of the current social situation. I mean, we regularly emphasize the value of communication in a relationship - how can proper communication outside a relationship be less important?

 

[_Necrosomantic_]

I wouldn't either and so I didn't.

You said " This is not that much related to BDSM though." I said it wasn't exclusive, but certainly related. Which is it?

First, the question whether pushy or unwanted attention is abusive or when it becomes abusive is pretty relevant. It would be absurd if the same behavior would become acceptable the very moment the "perpetrator" stops using the label 'dominant'.

It would be. To clarify, I was speaking about someone justifying that behavior to themselves because they identify as dominant, using it as an excuse to be pushy. Unwelcome attention isn't subject to democratic consensus, we all decide for ourselves where that line is drawn, regardless of what anyone chooses to label themselves as.

Second, it was not the thesis of the OP that her response is taken as a challenge.

Her initial question was ambiguous, she then went on to clarify that when she responded that she wasn't submissive, " The battle commenced." It's not a stretch to conclude that her statement is taken as a challenge that spurred them on to pursue her further in spite of her protests.

Third, there is no mutual exclusion where you hint that there is one - I can truly believe her statement "I'm not a submissive." and still try to get her laid. This is not at all absurd. At least, I don't think I'm very special in the ability to have satisfying sex with non-submissive women.

Getting laid isn't the issue, it's the fact that she is telling them she's not submissive and, according to what she says, they continue to persist and attempt to " Dom " her anyway. If this was simply a matter of someone bitching about getting hit on by Chuds who can't take a hint on the interwebbin, I'd have simply said " Welcome to Thunderdome " and gone off to catch the last five minutes of Little House.

I don't like to claim mental issues for every kind of undesired behavior. I have no idea if Trump (or HisArpy) needs to compensate something. I don't run around and claim that extreme submissives must have a pathological lack of self-confidence. So I abstain from doing this for dominants and their actions, too.

I calls 'em like I sees 'em.
I don't go around slapping personality disorders on people I don't agree with, I don't care what they identify as, and I don't bring labels up unless they are misrepresenting themselves or others. I'm not calling them out for their preferences, simply holding them accountable for the belligerent shit they say. Can't help it if I notice patterns or textbook manifestations of certain charming behaviors. On one more note, Trump is a fascist, misogynistic, orange colored bag of shit in a bad hair piece who doesn't know his ass from John Mccain's face. Yes, he has a lot to compensate for.

Maybe terrible communication is no ejection seat, where you can express nothing with your words and then insist that nothingness must be able to get you out of the current social situation. I mean, we regularly emphasize the value of communication in a relationship - how can proper communication outside a relationship be less important?

This is the impasse. You refuse to see it as anything other than purposely vague double speak used by those that play the victim card and used to later demonize, and I see it as plain as day rejection that while not blunt, is no less valid, and it takes a certain kind of egotistical fuckhead to ignore it and continue pursuing someone regardless of obvious disinterest. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. So that's the end of that.

 

[Primalex]

You said " This is not that much related to BDSM though." I said it wasn't exclusive, but certainly related. Which is it?

Seriously, you know that 'that' and 'much' are words, too, right? And not just a random combination of letters that happened to appear in my sentence?

To clarify, I was speaking about someone justifying that behavior to themselves because they identify as dominant, using it as an excuse to be pushy.

Okay, I didn't notice that we entered the realm of fiction.
My fault.

Just kidding, not my fault.

Her initial question was ambiguous, she then went on to clarify that when she responded that she wasn't submissive, " The battle commenced." It's not a stretch to conclude that her statement is taken as a challenge that spurred them on to pursue her further in spite of her protests.

You can draw conclusions all day long, I don't mind. But you cannot put your conclusions into the mouth of other people. She didn't say what you said she said - end of story.

If this was simply a matter of someone bitching about getting hit on by Chuds who can't take a hint on the interwebbin, I'd have simply said " Welcome to Thunderdome " and gone off to catch the last five minutes of Little House.

Maybe you should have done exactly this, because I can't see a single clue that this is not the situation.

You refuse to see it as anything other than purposely vague double speak used by those that play the victim card and used to later demonize, and I see it as plain as day rejection that while not blunt, is no less valid, and it takes a certain kind of egotistical fuckhead to ignore it and continue pursuing someone regardless of obvious disinterest. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. So that's the end of that.

Actually I still didn't make up my mind. I just state that so far I only see vague double speak. I have no idea how the other person(s) behaved so how should I be able to judge them? How easily you can judge people is quite telling though.