1 Dec 11, 11:02 AM
othyim
NL, 3 yrs |
sirguym wrote:
In my experience the s-types usually end up modestly wealthy.
Whilst the more risk-prone D types end up either very wealthy or broke, or often both, one after the other ...
Guy
|
Generalisation is so enchanting.
Really.
For the record, in my experience, not all D types are risk-prone.
Nor do all "s types" end op modestly wealthy.
Often, the opposite is the case.
But than, perhaps I'm not an "s-type".
"Class is the impartial, consistent display of emotional integrity."
|
1 Dec 11, 11:14 AM
mistletoad
UK, 7 mths
 |
the vulnerable
who the fuck are the vulnerable... Mormons..? Jeffrey Archer readers..? hip hop fans..? people who elaborate in sensationalist hyperbole and excrutiating minutiae the specific detail of the preparation of every meal..?
the vulnerable
you're mentally ill and you have an excuse (but not carte blanche crackpot behaviour, not by a long shot)
or you're a rupert |
1 Dec 11, 1:02 PM
Ianneil
UK(N), 5 yrs
 |
Ms_Valentine wrote:
Timeslip wrote:
Ianneil wrote:
Timeslip wrote:
You still have this odd notion of the "archetypal sub types".
I wonder what it is like.
|
So are you saying there are no archetypal sub types?
|
Am I saying this, that or the other? Do I have a message to be read in between the lines? No. You either wish to reply to my post or you do not. Stop trying to twist my words.
|
Yes, I don't get this archetypal sub types thing either?
Subs are just a range of normal human beings who happen to submit consensually in bdsm encounters or relationships. All else is variety and difference.
|
Ok just to define what I meant by archetypal in this context so as not to derail the thread.
In a general grouping there will several distinct sub groupings. Those individuals within these groupings will have general similarities to others in that group but also may drift into other groupings or oscillate between many groupings.
As for archetypal dom types there is a thread going on at the mo about blow up doms that is taking the piss out of archetypal dom types.
|
1 Dec 11, 1:28 PM
SubJohn
UK(TW), 12 yrs
|
<snip>
Ok just to define what I meant by archetypal in this context so as not to derail the thread.
In a general grouping there will several distinct sub groupings. Those individuals within these groupings will have general similarities to others in that group but also may drift into other groupings or oscillate between many groupings.
As for archetypal dom types there is a thread going on at the mo about blow up doms that is taking the piss out of archetypal dom types.
</snip>
|
that clears that up then... thanks 
|
1 Dec 11, 1:28 PM
Ms_Valentine
UK, 9 yrs
|
Ianneil wrote:
Ms_Valentine wrote:
Timeslip wrote:
Ianneil wrote:
Timeslip wrote:
You still have this odd notion of the "archetypal sub types".
I wonder what it is like.
|
So are you saying there are no archetypal sub types?
|
Am I saying this, that or the other? Do I have a message to be read in between the lines? No. You either wish to reply to my post or you do not. Stop trying to twist my words.
|
Yes, I don't get this archetypal sub types thing either?
Subs are just a range of normal human beings who happen to submit consensually in bdsm encounters or relationships. All else is variety and difference.
|
Ok just to define what I meant by archetypal in this context so as not to derail the thread.
In a general grouping there will several distinct sub groupings. Those individuals within these groupings will have general similarities to others in that group but also may drift into other groupings or oscillate between many groupings.
As for archetypal dom types there is a thread going on at the mo about blow up doms that is taking the piss out of archetypal dom types.
|
Come on, throw us a bone here.
You began this thread and mentioned archetypal sub types but I don't know what those types might be. can you give us some idea of what you meant in terms of the defining characteristics? It will be easier then to get what you were saying. Mistress of @paulss
My PD blog at http://mistress-keene.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/#!/Mistress_Keene
|
1 Dec 11, 1:34 PM
Mr_Punch
UK, 8 mths
|
awolagain wrote:
the vulnerable
who the fuck are the vulnerable... Mormons..? Jeffrey Archer readers..? hip hop fans..? people who elaborate in sensationalist hyperbole and excrutiating minutiae the specific detail of the preparation of every meal..?
the vulnerable
you're mentally ill and you have an excuse (but not carte blanche crackpot behaviour, not by a long shot)
or you're a rupert
|
The vulnerable, like fascits, idiots etc are usually just people who don't agree with you |
1 Dec 11, 5:14 PM
othyim
NL, 3 yrs |
Mr_Punch wrote:
awolagain wrote:
the vulnerable
who the fuck are the vulnerable... Mormons..? Jeffrey Archer readers..? hip hop fans..? people who elaborate in sensationalist hyperbole and excrutiating minutiae the specific detail of the preparation of every meal..?
the vulnerable
you're mentally ill and you have an excuse (but not carte blanche crackpot behaviour, not by a long shot)
or you're a rupert
|
The vulnerable, like fascits, idiots etc are usually just people who don't agree with you
|
I'm so sorry for the both of you.
"Class is the impartial, consistent display of emotional integrity."
|
1 Dec 11, 6:08 PM
ClassAct2005
UK(N), 7 yrs
|
I strong disagree with the sexist assumption of the thread. I am sub. I am quite successful and I say qutie because I'm modest and English and of course there are always those better off but one reasoni do well is I take risks. You can have a submissive sexuality but be very alpha and successful. You can be gay and lead a company or gay and be the company's cleaner. Our sexuality does not determine our careers. You can be a Captain of Industry and submissive or the same and dominant and your sexuality is not in most cases a reaction to your work choice. Your sexuality is often there at birth and is not a release or escape from the rest of your life.
I can be sub, successful, a risk taker and effective and competent. That might mean inadequate men with low self esteem who only want an unemployed depressive sub with a drug habit so they can cure her might not want me but that doesn't mean I'm unattractive and nor does it mean I'm not submissive. |
1 Dec 11, 6:32 PM
sirguym
UK(HR), 6 yrs
|
Of course, my experiences in life may well not tally with yours.
I only summarised mine; which is, needfully to fit in a thread like this, a gross simplification.
Guy
othyim wrote:
sirguym wrote:
In my experience the s-types usually end up modestly wealthy.
Whilst the more risk-prone D types end up either very wealthy or broke, or often both, one after the other ...
Guy
|
Generalisation is so enchanting.
Really.
For the record, in my experience, not all D types are risk-prone.
Nor do all "s types" end op modestly wealthy.
Often, the opposite is the case.
But than, perhaps I'm not an "s-type".
|
Tawsingham, where everyone can be whomsoever they want to be @Tawsingham_Feudal guy@tawse.com PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100
|
1 Dec 11, 6:40 PM
Mr_Punch
UK, 8 mths
|
othyim wrote:
Mr_Punch wrote:
awolagain wrote:
the vulnerable
who the fuck are the vulnerable... Mormons..? Jeffrey Archer readers..? hip hop fans..? people who elaborate in sensationalist hyperbole and excrutiating minutiae the specific detail of the preparation of every meal..?
the vulnerable
you're mentally ill and you have an excuse (but not carte blanche crackpot behaviour, not by a long shot)
or you're a rupert
|
The vulnerable, like fascits, idiots etc are usually just people who don't agree with you
|
I'm so sorry for the both of you.
|
why would i care what you think? there is nothing new, novel or interesting about you, just living the cliche |
