3 Jul 09, 7:30 PM
rabbot
12 yrs |
rubesque wrote:
rabbot wrote:
El_Presidente wrote:
Haven't you had enough of this?
You seem like a nice guy, so I'm not trying to be unkind here, but I really don't think it's doing you any good airing whatever 'issues' you have with doms.
If I were you, I'd delete the thread before somebody copies it.
|
Sometimes you just have to be controversial to get the old grey matter stirring. I know that British brains like to take a siesta in the hot weather but what the hell!
|
I rarely facepalm, but jeez; your pushing Me to it....
|
Oh, I have lots of enemies, join the queue 
Happiness is a warm bum!
|
3 Jul 09, 7:34 PM
ElectricLadyLand
UK, 4 yrs
 |
rabbot wrote:
rubesque wrote:
rabbot wrote:
El_Presidente wrote:
Haven't you had enough of this?
You seem like a nice guy, so I'm not trying to be unkind here, but I really don't think it's doing you any good airing whatever 'issues' you have with doms.
If I were you, I'd delete the thread before somebody copies it.
|
Sometimes you just have to be controversial to get the old grey matter stirring. I know that British brains like to take a siesta in the hot weather but what the hell!
|
I rarely facepalm, but jeez; your pushing Me to it....
|
Oh, I have lots of enemies, join the queue
|
Enemy? Oh no My dear. Your stupidity does not make Me hate you, why on earth would it? He looked into My eyes, and I almost died. Then I remembered what I was and half killed him.
|
3 Jul 09, 7:37 PM
El_Presidente
UK(G), 4 yrs
  |
rabbot wrote:
El_Presidente wrote:
Haven't you had enough of this?
You seem like a nice guy, so I'm not trying to be unkind here, but I really don't think it's doing you any good airing whatever 'issues' you have with doms.
If I were you, I'd delete the thread before somebody copies it.
|
Sometimes you just have to be controversial to get the old grey matter stirring. I know that British brains like to take a siesta in the hot weather but what the hell!
|
The only thing my grey matter is still trying to figure out is why you're so dead set on 'looking a right fanny' [sic].
Alas, this (series of) thread(s) is not the thought-provoking cauldron of intellectual debate that you seem to think it is. Edited for tyops by El_Presidente
|
3 Jul 09, 8:24 PM
SarahSoo
UK, 2 yrs |
Rabbot, you've gone! |
3 Jul 09, 9:56 PM
Corwin
UK(L), 10 yrs
|
Has he gone or is it an example of Schrödinger's cat in practice?
He is both gone and actually still there, it is only in the action of observing his profile does one truth or the other come into being. A rock feels no pain, and an island never cries.
|
5 Jul 09, 2:30 PM
BadWulf
UK(TA), 6 yrs
|
The OP has left the building! My, what sharp teeth I have.
|
12 Jul 09, 2:36 AM
PrinceCaspian
UK(SE), 6 yrs
|
El_Presidente wrote:
PrinceCaspian wrote:
Single, hmm I like that.
I once saw a show where a woman asked a man if he was straight...
"I can't really call myself straight in the same way I can't call myself an astronaut, I mean I'm not actually in space or anything right now, but I'd very much like to be"
|
That's an awful lot of pish to spiel out where a simple 'yes' would have sufficed!
|
I guess while not dominating someone, dom or domme or sub for that matter are like straight or gay, an orientation. What you want but not what you are.
|
By referring to a 'dom' who is not dominating someone, you have acknowledged the fact that someone can still *be* a 'dom' whilst not in the process of domming someone.
To be a 'dom' simply means to be someone of a dominant orientation (i.e. not necessarily someone who is 'domming' right now). That's what it seems to mean to the vast majority anyway.
If you choose to place additional constraints on the meanings of commonly accepted words, just because you feel that that's what they *should* mean, then that just means that nobody will understand you and you'll for ever be explaining yourself, just like the man in your example.
|
I was simply employing the common usage of the word. Not validating any specific definition.
Semantics are not quite so simple.
I will of course continue to use dom as a descriptive word for expediency's sake that doesn't stop me believing that if you call yourself a dom it describes what you do not what you are.
Interestingly (to me) would people say that a "dom" who hasn't ever dommed anyone is still a dom? "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."
Oscar Wilde
Edited 12 Jul 09, 1:18 PM by PrinceCaspian
|
12 Jul 09, 6:38 AM
x_Pan_x
UK(E), 8 yrs
|
rabbot wrote:
There is such a thing as a dom!
The previous post was a thought experiment merely to show that our sexual orientation does not exist in a vacuum indeed even our most bizarre fantasies have to based upon something encountered in our social life, for some in our childhood, and for others later on.
So does this mean that if someone who is inherently dom but cannot find a woman to submit to him is an impotent dom? Impotent in his domliness that is.
|
If a Dom uses a flogger in the forest, and no submissive is there to feel it, is he really a Dom?
Ahem.
Then answer to the OP is, of course, "No."
Being Dominant is in no way dependent on having a partner. Being a Dominant is first and foremost about controlling oneself. How can one hope to control someone else, if one is out of control?
So when single, he's no impotent, he's just potential.
The expedition of my violent love, outrun the pauser reason.
In Syberia - a Blog
Edited 12 Jul 09, 6:39 AM by x_Pan_x
|
12 Jul 09, 9:44 AM
PrinceCaspian
UK(SE), 6 yrs
|
Syberian wrote:
Being Dominant is in no way dependent on having a partner. Being a Dominant is first and foremost about controlling oneself. How can one hope to control someone else, if one is out of control?
So when single, he's no impotent, he's just potential.
|
this would make most submisives I know doms (and a few doms I've met certainly don't fulfill these criteria.) "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."
Oscar Wilde
|
12 Jul 09, 10:10 AM
x_Pan_x
UK(E), 8 yrs
|
PrinceCaspian wrote:
Syberian wrote:
Being Dominant is in no way dependent on having a partner. Being a Dominant is first and foremost about controlling oneself. How can one hope to control someone else, if one is out of control?
So when single, he's no impotent, he's just potential.
|
this would make most submisives I know doms (and a few doms I've met certainly don't fulfill these criteria.)
|
Just my take on it of course, but I don't agree with your reading. For me, not succumbing to the normal detritus that can build up like an icky silt in the corners of a relationship and being that point of stillness and strength for a submissive, is all about personal control.
There are other flavours I'm sure.
As for a submissive, I enjoy those who are feisty and a challenge, who want and need to be led, contained and controlled but to whom this doesn't come naturally - who are themselves challenged by the dichotomy. When one of those woman finds me the person they can submit to without that discordance overtaking their natural responses, then I know I'm doing the right things.
Other Dominants may have a different take I'm sure.
For the record I also tell jokes and try not to take myself this seriously all the time 
The expedition of my violent love, outrun the pauser reason.
In Syberia - a Blog
|
