Aphentez
Posts: 2
Joined: 4/26/2006
Status: offline
|
I hadn't intended to post here again, but a few responses to my original post require follow-ups.
quote:
ORIGINAL:carlipet
Second, there is no such thing as a true dominant. What you found is nothing to what he is in real life. Nothing online is ever anything like the real deal. The only way to know if a dominant is the kind of dominant that you can relate and submit to is to meet him.
If there is no such thing as a true dominant, does that mean that you believe no one can truly dominate another? If there is no such thing as a true dominant, what is the "real deal" that you speak of?
I do agree that on-line is no substitute for real-life, but in the case of craiglist-guy, he wasn't even dominant on-line. The bulk of their conversations appeared to be about what she wanted him to do with her. Everything that he wanted from her, he seemed compelled to whine about, beg for and plead for mercy from her with submissive promises. From that kind of base, it isn't necessary to meet in real life in order to know he isn't the "real deal." Perhaps he could become that, but not at the hands of a submissive.
quote:
ORIGINAL:reamer
...there are JUST as many fake female subs as fake doms.
I don't agree with this at all. I think there are few if any fake female submissives. Submissiveness is a passive quality. One needn't possess or exercise any great wisdom, power or courage to submit. One must, however, to dominate. I'm not saying that submissives do not possess such qualities, only that they are not necessary to submission--and they are necessary to domination.
When a submissive behaves contrary to someone who is attempting to dominate her, don't imagine that makes her a fake submissive. When a man attempts to dominate a woman, it's perfectly natural for her to test his strengths physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually. Some submissive women have elaborate, consciously constructed testing schemes, but all test at least subconsciously. It's part of their nature. How else can she know if a man really has it in him to dominate her? There is no way except to try and walk all over him in very many ways, and she too often succeeds. She doesn't want to succeed. She longs for a man who she can't dominate, who is worthy of her submission. And that's the big problem. There is no shortage of true submissives at all. The only shortage is of dominants with the wherewithal to dominate them.
The inequity comes mostly from the fact that both dominance and submissiveness are naturally inborn, but both require nurturing by dominants in order to achieve their highest expressions. The ability to truly dominate comes from more than just birthright. It additionally requires the aforementioned wisdom, power and courage--none of which arise from the common spectacle of whim-worship among most would-be dominants. They must be nurtured. Most of the fake dominants spoken to in this thread may have true dominance deep in their souls. It's just covered with cultural crap, unharnessed and undirected or misdirected, suppressing men to behave as wimps, leading them to vent their frustrations through abusive behavior rather than exercising benevolent power, and everything in between.
As for submissives being fake, there's no doubt that many are way out of hand, but who can blame them? They yearn to be dominated, and it's maddeningly frustrating for them to discover how they can walk all over one would-be dominant after another. That's the cruel joke mentioned in my first post. After a while, meeting one would-be dominant after another, none who cannot pass their tests--who the submissives can dominate and wrap around their little fingers--often breeds well-earned contempt within them for the whole lot. Since their submissiveness is never exploited, some even come to get their kicks from stomping would-be dominant ass. When submissives tend to run wild as a result of that, don't blame them and call them fake. Dominate them, instead. Make them true to what they are. They desperately need and want that guidance.
Of course, I suppose that will never happen as long as folks deny that a true dominant is even possible. At least it won't happen for them. For others, however, it's something to reach for.
One thing that makes the issue dually important returns us to the question of submissives' possession of wisdom, power and courage. Not only do they possess such qualities, but it appears to me that in many respects they often possess them in excess of many men who have natural dominance sleeping restlessly in their souls. While men have always had a physical advantage in dominating women, women evolved a mitigating cunning. Today, however, while ones physical advantage has been discouraged, the others cunning has been encouraged. At the same time the natural yearnings of both remain, and the situation has turned ugly. It's not all bad. I actually think it's created an opportunity for developing deeper, more meaningful relationships than ever before, but very many guys need to wake up and get wise if the yearnings of both dominance and submissiveness that respectively resides within us are to be truly gratified for many.
Of course, mainstream BDSM often does more to exacerbate the problem than to solve it because its rules require would-be dominants to let submissives walk all over them in real-life terms.
quote:
ORIGINAL:SimplyMichael
I am curious what those BDSM rules are.
I was mostly referring to the standard, bottom-up hierarchy. The submissives dictate the terms, set the limits and say when to start and stop. In real-life terms, BDSM accords the real power to the submissives, and dominants' actions are dictated by submissives' wills. In the context of mainstream BDSM, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Given what BDSM is, it's necessary to the nature of the game. The problem arises when people innocently come to BDSM imagining that it's rules are suitable to providing guidance for living real life. Such BDSM rules are just fine for role-playing fantasies, allowing the players to gain some gratification of yearnings deep within them. Actually believing that gaming paradigm is a fit model for living real life, however, can do more to confuse and nullify a player's personal identity than to resolve it. SSC is another example of BDSM rules. I'm certainly not against being safe, sane and consensual, but the way BDSM represents SSC for the game is not directly relevant to living real-life dominant/submissive relationships. Attempting that is somewhat like attempting to live real life according to what is regarded as SSC in the game of chess. I simply think it's important for people to keep their eyes open to the nature of the BDSM paradigm and not be mislead into believing it is anything other than what it is.
quote:
ORIGINAL:MadRabbit
Among all these stereotypes, there is a lot of decent guys who just simply havent figured it all out yet. A lot of people who get written off as these "fake Doms" simply because they are still learning and understanding.
Not all of us were born super heros. It takes time, life experience, and a HELL of a lot of mistakes before a person becomes this super dominant figure that knows what to do in every single possible situation. I know good dominants twice my age who still occassionally make a huge fuck up. Hell, even sometimes they come to me for advice and perspective. However, their submissives dont go running into the woods, screaming fake Dom. They understand that their dominant figure is an imperfect person.
First, I take exception to you profiling my descriptions as stereotyping. I included comprehensive exceptions and qualifications along the way, and if you did not see yourself among them, that speaks only to how you see yourself, not how I see you.
I absolutely agree that "there is a lot of decent guys who just simply havent figured it all out yet." As I said in one of my examples, "He might be the nicest guy in the world with the best of intentions, but he simply isn't up to the task when put on the line." I qualified a fake within that example, however, as one who "says he can and will do that but can't deliver." Ignorance doesn't make one a fake. Pretending one is something he isn't does.
Also as you've recognized, at least to some extent, the real crux of the problem is that gaining the wisdom to benevolently exercise ones qualities of dominance with focused discipline is no small task. The ultimate expression of such mastery is really a task of generations, not something that one can fully do from scratch, on his own, in even a single lifetime. In our present generations, we are also held to a new, higher standard of it than ever.
Of course, that's a huge subject, and this is not the place for it. Suffice it to say that things have changed a great deal since the days of getting a girl by dragging her off by the hair to ones lair. I'm sure that makes some sad and frustrated, but I regard it as a golden opportunity and grand inspiration to deeply understand our natures and live a proportionately more fulfilling execution of them than ever conceivable during the humanitarian Dark Ages from which we came and which still surrounds us.
That's my own philosophy that I was thinking of as I wrote. But whatever philosophy one builds or adopts, I think it's provisions for our natures of dominance and submissiveness must be wide and deep in order to establish wholesome relationships between the two.
As for the rest of your arguments, MadRabbit, I chose to respond to the one that seemed to have most merit. I think that my position on the rest has already been made clear or should become so as I go on.
quote:
ORIGINAL:topcat
M. Rabbit-
I think you are missing the brillance of his post. By placing himself as 'of bdsm, but not in bdsm' so to speak, he is simply cutting her out of the herd in the same way a less clever predator will use 'the Olde Guard' or 'secret ancient house/order of TWUE bdsm'.
It's brillant, because unlike the tired ploys, not only does it not require any supporting evidence, the lack of any other information about the 'one true way' confirms his way- and only his way- as the true path.
I bet she falls for it...
...
M. Ron-
Yeah, but it is nice to see such a skillful execution. The mirror-speak, the well positioned, carefully postured 'we are different from all these freaks' implications- just wonderfully crafted. I admire the skill and focus.
...
M. Michael-
Sorry to steal your thunder- thought you might be busy, so we jumped in to lend a hand- that's just how we roll<g>.
He does hit some truths- the real trick of any great scam. He never says he is a true dom for that matter- just spells it out so the obvious conclusion is that he is, which, if picked up on, he can p'shaw away- cause a true dom is modest!
Stay warm,
Lawrence
These topcat comments are my primary reason for responding at all, and I'm rightly going way off topic to defend myself against the charges raised here.
Were I what topcat charged, I suppose I could feel complimented by his admiration of my skill, focus and brilliance. However, I do not share his capacity for foolishness or deceit, whichever the case may be. I'm not certain whether his "analysis" of my views was a comedy of errors born from mere ignorance or whether he committed them with purposeful deceit. I suppose I'll have to address both possibilities.
First, I never represented myself as "of bdsm" at all. I never have been "of bdsm." I'm not now, and I never will be. I recognize that topcat qualified his statement with a "so to speak," meaning there was nothing in anything I said to justify his claim, so the best he could do to discredit me was to make stuff up and try to make it appear that it represented me. For the record, although I never referenced them here, some of my practices may appear to be "bdsm" upon superficial observation, but they are real, purposeful and grounded in the context of serving entire lives, not any kind of BDSM game or "kink" at all. To extend the popular BDSM simile, what I stand for is not merely more layers of crunchies and various flavors of perversion on top of the perversions of "vanilla" culture. I go for the cream.
The main source of my personal indifference toward BDSM is that BDSM is essentially "vanilla." It accepts "vanilla" at its core, as some sort of standard, and then deviates from that. It recognizes some real yearnings of our natures that are often denied by "vanilla" culture, but it attempts to address them as deviations of deviations, not get to their source. I prefer to get to the source.
Is mine the "one true way"? I wouldn't categorize it as that, but in my experience I have come to recognize some universal truths more clearly than most people appear to recognize them. This is not some mystical gift. It's something I've striven to understand. Sure, each of us is unique in many ways, and our differences can be cause for celebration. But we also all possess in common many group and universally true qualities that go far beyond our needs for air and water and food. And I fear that too many people neglect to develop understandings for properly distinguishing between our individual, group and universal qualities. What flavor ice cream or pie one prefers is a matter of personal taste. Whether to eat pie or dirt or poison, however, is not. One will nourish us. Another won't and may make us sick. Another will kill us. So the extent of my "one true way" is to enable an understanding for always choosing the first.
Obviously, the above food-dirt-poison reference speaks to what is and isn't good for our bodies. However, it founds a good analogy for my main, less obvious point because it's so obviously true. The less obvious point is the existence of corresponding truths for nourishing, sickening or killing our souls (innate metaphysical natures). In that realm of our individual lives, it's the ideas that we ingest and live by that dictate our actions and the health of our hearts (emotions) and bring them into harmony or disparity with our souls, leading to healthful fulfillment and happiness--even exhalation--or not. Sure, when stated in so many words, I understand that may sound like hokey-pokey to some who have never seriously considered such matters or who have unthinkingly accepted whatever they've been told by others. However, it will also resonate with some who have at least some understanding of their natures. For the rest, one has to start somewhere. "One true way"? I say, viva la difference, sure, but I fear that too many people who embrace that idea, think it means "anything goes," and often proceed to corrupt rather than nourish their minds and hearts, violating their souls, innocently accepting whatever mindlessness is dished out, like little kittens lapping up spilt antifreeze because it seems to taste good--or swallowing topcat's clever "wisdom" in reference to my first post.
What topcat recognized as the "brilliance...skillful execution...wonderfully crafted" nature of my post was the fact that everything I said is irrefutable. Or, as he chose to frame it, it did not "not require any supporting evidence." Yes, I made some sweeping statements, but except for the fact that my post was addressed to courtesan and directly criticized craiglist-guy, I qualified everything I said so as to keep it about ideas, not people. And it did require supporting evidence in the form of the reader's own experience. That's how some readers came to recognize the validity of at least some of what I said even though I did not provide all the necessary evidence to support it. To those who do not possess the necessary experience and honesty, it may have just sounded like so much noise, and they may not have liked the sound of it because it contradicted much of the BS they had unthinkingly swallowed in the past. For the more open-minded, however, all I did was to provide some food for thought, perhaps helping to validate the reader's own experience and to make some beneficial connections within it that otherwise might not be made. Also, while I figured that others might benefit from what I wrote, I was primarily addressing the original poster, courtesan. What topcat regarded as "mirroring," is valid to the extent that I had read courtesan's posts, listened to her concerns and gleaned some understanding of her own experience. As the original poster of this thread, she was, indeed, my primary audience in that my arguments were largely written to depend on what I had surmised of her intellect and experience. From there I was merely helping her to connect some dots as she entered this new-to-her territory. What is somewhat amusing about topcat's response, is that he appears to have enough experience to have seen the truths in what I said, but simply didn't like having to face them. So what does one lacking integrity do when faced with truths that he wishes to deny? He invents a personal smear.
The hypocrisy of it is really too funny, in a sick sort of way. I made a post that was meant to be entirely helpful to someone wandering in here, brand new, offering a point of view that she probably isn't going to get anywhere else. Because the truth of what I said wasn't liked but also couldn't be intelligently argued against, what do I get? I get branded a predator! What happened to not labeling people? What happened to being accepting of different viewpoints? What worse label could anyone possibly be given than predator? It's a very serious charge that no wise or benevolent man would make without overwhelming evidence, much less no evidence. I'll head off the possibility that topcat will try to weasel his way out of it by saying that he didn't make that charge against me. Check his grammar. He did. As a consequence, he marked himself as highly irresponsible in the eyes of any honest, thinking person. I could say he's a scammer, too, except I'm not sure whether he took his position out of mere foolishness or conscious deceit.
The saddest part of it is that no one else confronted him on such hypocrisy and unjust baseness. The only responses were in mindless support of his shallowness or deceit--whichever it was. That's herd mentality to the nth degree, for sure. Something way too common here, I fear. It's also a good example of taking the kind of intellectual poison that I spoke to earlier, and it cries out for help.
In the end, though, no harm is done to me. To me it's just another example of the blind leading the blind, and it's only purpose was to distract people from the veracity of my post for the malignant ends of others. Uh, courtesan, you ready to hook up now? Sorry, but there is just no way that we're any kind of a match. I never considered it, and I'm sure you didn't, either. And yet topcat was ready to bet on it. For those who can't follow any of the rest of this, that should tell you something about the validity of his thinking. Besides, if I were up to what he said, I think I would have written to courtesan privately, not posted what I did in a public forum. It would really all be very silly if weren't so serious.
After the fact, I can see how my relatively strong tone might be taken as trying to "cut someone out of the herd." It really wasn't all that strong, though. It probably only seemed that way in the midst of so much milk toast. I did suspect that I might alienate some, but that seemed of little consequence beside the need to say what needed to be said. I also know that some readers agreed with what I had to say to the letter and were quite gratified by it. Most won't say so publicly because that would alienate them from the herd, and I don't blame them for that. I most enjoyed courtesan's response. "Good lawyer!" My post, at any rate, was for those who might benefit from it and it wasn't a call for anyone to leave collarme--only to be wary and wise while here. The same is true for this one.
quote:
ORIGINAL:SimplyMichael
Goddamnit you guys, you are screwing this all up. YOU are supposed to play more reasoned, if still critical voices while I, "CaptainAsshole" eviscerate self appointed "Superdoms" with vicious wit and humor.
What is the world coming to?
...
Sad thing is, I actually agree with some of what he says about the scene, if it was less self aggrandizing, it would have made for an interesting discussion.
I'm glad you agree with at least some of what I said. It wasn't my intent to aggrandize myself at all. I simply am what I am and I said what I honestly think as succinctly as I could on a subject that is deeply important to me. In a healthier environment, what I said and the way I said it would be met with little other than, "Of course." What I said was also all about ideas, which never comes across as warm and cuddly as small-talk chit-chat.
Besides, I have no purpose for establishing any station here. I made the first post for reasons stated, and I wouldn't be responding now but for the idle charges of others, like that I'm a predator. Sheesh! The reality is that my greatest motivation for posting such as I have is out of compassion for the many submissives who depend on meeting dominants for fulfilling their own lives but instead are most often met with superficial whim-worship, evasion, denial, ignorance and abuse, knowing or not. If I can help some submissives to better understand their plight, and maybe wake up a man or two who might one day benevolently dominate them, I'd be happy with that.
To better set the record straight, if anyone cares what I really am, a part of my background that most folks here might at least recognize is Gorean, since my early twenties. That may help explain some things, as disagreements between Goreans and BDSMers aren't anything new. I've generally kept my distance from those disagreements in the past, but I'm familiar with the arguments. I no longer count myself as Gorean, however. As the years have passed, my own philosophy significantly diverged from Gor. A much larger philosophical influence on me than Gor has been Objectivism, also going way back, so that may add another piece to solve the puzzle. Still, my philosophy is my own. It's just that my ideas have evolved and been fleshed in such that they are too different from anything in the Gor books to be called "Gorean." I tried to reconcile the two for a long time, but I finally had to stop making excuses for Gor. In any case, I have a high regard for a man's honor, and I'm certainly not here to mislead or hurt anyone, but I'm also not going to pretend that I don't know what I do know in order to pacify those who wish to pretend that no one can know something simply because they don't know it, themselves.
If you've clicked to look at my profile, you may also wonder why there's practically nothing there. I understand that some people often rightly find something like that to be suspicious. In my case, I opened this account last year simply to use the "Interests" feature to make comparisons with a slave I know here. I've done little further with it because I've had no reason to place a personals ad. I've considered doing that someday, however, plus I occasionally talk to one person or another here, so I've kept the account open.
Finally, I have little interest in pursuing a debate on these subjects, at least not in this context. This has gone way off topic for the thread, anyway, but it was necessary to address the personal smears against me, and I've set the record straight to my satisfaction. In a week or so I may look in again to see if there are any honest responses that merit further attention.
I wish all well.
|
RE: Spotting a Fake Dom - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread