Padriag
Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesFIP
My problem with Padraig's approach is that it says to me he doesn't want to be friends with his sub. And I need to be friends first. When I meet someone at a gathering and start talking, I don't cross my arms, stare into their eyes and say "Give me ten reasons I should waste my time with you". If I did, I wouldn't ever have any friends. I don't have any expectations but I do have hopes that I will enjoy ten minutes of conversation.
This laundry list approach tells me first thing that the relationship will not include friendship, there will be no sitting on the couch watching Looney Tunes and laughing our heads off. And I need that in a relationship as much as I need picnics by the lake, long walks, and lots of sex and bondage. I need us to be friends and I'm not compatible with someone who doesn't want to be my friend.
That an interesting reply... but at least you seem to be questioning what about it bothers you. What follows isn't intended to "pick" on you Des... but your post seemed to sum up a pattern I've watched emerge.
One thing I've found intriguing about this whole exchange has been the reaction of most of the women and how quickly many formed assumptions that were not in evidence (and in a couple cases individuals have evidence to the contrary). You do this in your reply.
quote:
My problem with Padraig's approach is
You actually don't know what my "approach" is... you've made an assumption based on one posited question that has provoked a fairly strong reaction from most of the women. A couple of the ladies ought to know better, given that they've cooresponded with me in the past and have ample evidence in their in boxes of just how chatty and friendly I usually am. Yet one singular question and all that goes out the window. Even when they know it isn't the case and have evidence to the contrary in their own experience, I'm still attributed with qualities not actually in existence. I find that very interesting... an you should find it troublesome.
quote:
he doesn't want to be friends with his sub
Really? An you know this how? Funny, given the volumes I've posted in the past on these forums about relationships, about the nature of my own relationships... again, there's ample evidence to dispute your assumption. And yet, you along with more than a few others very quickly "forgot" all that and leaped to a new assumption. Why? What about that single question evoked such a powerful emotional response in you and others as to override your own memory and reason? What about it caused women I know to otherwise be reasonable and intelligent to make and accept assumptions clearly not the case?
quote:
When I meet someone at a gathering and start talking, I don't cross my arms, stare into their eyes and say "Give me ten reasons I should waste my time with you".
Again, this is another interesting assumption not in evidence. Actually, I gave evidence to the contrary, but that seems to have been largely ignored when I said this in a reply to Marie...
quote:
Also... I didn't say the question came right out of the gate... nor did I say it was the whole of a "conversation". I did say it was a question asked early on as part of the process. To be clear, its a question asked, among others, and as part of an ongoing conversation.
That so many glossed over that, or even their own knowledge of my past behavior and readily accepted a new perception of me indicates something else interesting is going on. This is hitting a raw nerve with a lot of women.
quote:
I don't have any expectations but I do have hopes that I will enjoy ten minutes of conversation.
I gotta call bullshit on that. First because you contradict yourself in the very same sentence, but also because we ALL have various expectations. I think that if very central to the reaction that has been seen. Being asked a simple and direct question apparently violates one such unspoken expectation. Men are not supposed to ask... they're supposed to inuit what the woman has to offer without her ever having to consciously "reveal" herself... allowing her to remain the coy creature (apparently a couple thousand years of cultural habit cannot be forgotten in a few generations). Another seems to be that most women still very much expect to be seduced and romanced in some fashion. Fantasies of being auctioned off, objectified, etc.. are just that, fantasies. Very few actually want to be treated as slaves.. regardless of what they call themselves.
Personally, I find all this interesting because of some of the hypocrisy it high-lights. How often have any of us referred to ourselves as "kinky" people, as "lifestylers"... and to non-kinky people as "vanillas"? That one word, "vanillas", has at times been an epithet, a derogatory label hurled at "them" because they are not "us". Aren't they... aren't we? What I mean is, are we really all that different despite our protestations to the contrary? Reading over some of the replies I see statements like this...
quote:
If a vanilla male asked this question of a vanilla female there is a good chance she would suggest he preform an impossible sexual act. What would that be any different in a BDSM relationship?
Indeed why should it be any different? But then, what does that mean? Are we really just boyfriends and girlfriends who happen to like a little kink in our sex life? Are we all really just vanilla underneath the masks we wear?
I point this out because, again, how often have we seen on these very forums (and others like it), claims of how BDSM relationships are somehow "purer" or "superior" or "more honest." But are we really any more honest... or less so? Given that such kinky relationships are often filled with drama and seem to have a significantly higher failure rate than vanilla marriages... perhaps we are a good deal less honest and superior than is often claimed. For all the talk of masters and slaves and ownership... how much of this is fact and how much fantasy? How much an appealing mask we wear... an underneath still our vanilla selves?
So yes... indeed why should a BDSM relationship be any different? Why should a man claiming to be a "master" wishing to "own" another person... or a woman claiming to be a "slave" and wishing to be owned... be any different at all from that vanilla boyfriend or girlfriend... why indeed, even if it sounds quite different?
Maybe its all really just the same thing... in which case most of us would be liars, frauds and pretenders.
Oh, and for the record... I can sing the theme song to Animaniacs by heart. 
_____________________________
Padriag
A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer
|
RE: "Why should I consider you?" - 
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