He's not a Dom....

[Curious_in_Cali]

OP, the actions of the ex would concern me less than the actions of the current partner. If you have expressed that it makes you uncomfortable then I find it more odd that he would continue to engage in communication with your ex.


SlutAddicted, sometimes I read posts like yours and I'm reminded that some people have not had to fight defensively in their lives as much as others. I had an argument with an ex once where it finally occurred to me that he had never experienced fear of physical harm. It was in that moment that it finally clicked that every argument I could make speaking from my experience of fear would never make sense to him. It was not until years later that he experienced a profound physical injury and experienced vulnerability that he FINALLY allowed the idea that defensive actions in response to fear were not "over emotional" but actually a valid place to take action from. Some people can trust someone when they say the bench has wet paint, but most others have to touch it to believe it.

Just because something is difficult does not mean that it is impossible. When it comes to protecting your true self, it would be wise to not underestimate the humans ability to adapt to survive. The actions I have had to choose to take in my life do not reflect my most comfortable and inherent sensibilities, but I am still here, whole, and thriving as my true self because of them. What I have had to do DOES NOT define who I am, it is simply what I had to do to get to today.

It's a beautiful idea that we can just know and freely be who we are from birth, but we mostly survive until we find the life havens that allow us to truly undress and be ourselves. If it took me until the day I was dying to find peace in the knowing who I am and breathing and being it would be no less valid than had I always known and lived in that space.

How long something takes to accomplish does not change it's importance or validity either. Some wounds and inner muck can take a life time to sort. It is not our place to determine someone else's identity. It is our responsibility to honor the gestation of self identity in others if we are to demand the right to define ourselves.

Dragonflies spend most of their life as swimming water bugs, and yet us external observing humans label them dragonflies. Are they truly a dragon fly or a water bug? If the truth is that they are both, then no answer is wrong, it is simply how they identify at the time of being asked. If the flitting dragonfly declared itself truly a water bug, and found peace in that who are we to argue?

 

[midwestyankee]

OP, the actions of the ex would concern me less than the actions of the current partner. If you have expressed that it makes you uncomfortable then I find it more odd that he would continue to engage in communication with your ex.


SlutAddicted, sometimes I read posts like yours and I'm reminded that some people have not had to fight defensively in their lives as much as others. I had an argument with an ex once where it finally occurred to me that he had never experienced fear of physical harm. It was in that moment that it finally clicked that every argument I could make speaking from my experience of fear would never make sense to him. It was not until years later that he experienced a profound physical injury and experienced vulnerability that he FINALLY allowed the idea that defensive actions in response to fear were not "over emotional" but actually a valid place to take action from. Some people can trust someone when they say the bench has wet paint, but most others have to touch it to believe it.

Just because something is difficult does not mean that it is impossible. When it comes to protecting your true self, it would be wise to not underestimate the humans ability to adapt to survive. The actions I have had to choose to take in my life do not reflect my most comfortable and inherent sensibilities, but I am still here, whole, and thriving as my true self because of them. What I have had to do DOES NOT define who I am, it is simply what I had to do to get to today.

It's a beautiful idea that we can just know and freely be who we are from birth, but we mostly survive until we find the life havens that allow us to truly undress and be ourselves. If it took me until the day I was dying to find peace in the knowing who I am and breathing and being it would be no less valid than had I always known and lived in that space.

How long something takes to accomplish does not change it's importance or validity either. Some wounds and inner muck can take a life time to sort. It is not our place to determine someone else's identity. It is our responsibility to honor the gestation of self identity in others if we are to demand the right to define ourselves.

Dragonflies spend most of their life as swimming water bugs, and yet us external observing humans label them dragonflies. Are they truly a dragon fly or a water bug? If the truth is that they are both, then no answer is wrong, it is simply how they identify at the time of being asked. If the flitting dragonfly declared itself truly a water bug, and found peace in that who are we to argue?

Quoted for truth.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Personally I don't think people change in any material way. It often seems that way because early in our lives we are conditioned by our surroundings and want to please those who raise us and guide our early years. Unfortunately a lot of parents/teachers/bosses try to mold who we will be - it doesn't work but it can fuck us up for decades trying to find our true selves (if they ever do). So when we see changes in people it is usually just that they are finally coming to grips with their true selves or reacting to external pressure but really fooling themselves.

Often the people closest to us see our true nature better than we do. I tend to think that strong dominant or submissive tendencies are difficult to hide, so it seems unlikely one would just happen to uncover them after 30+ years. Seems more like he is trying to be something he is not.

But then that assumes you have an objective perspective. Maybe your life conditioning has colored your view of him. In this day and age there is lots of pressure for men to be milquetoast and women to be tigers. Maybe you were both fooling yourself trying to play the role you thought you should. It sounds as though you "discovered" your own submissiveness fairly recently or did you know it all along and just came out a couple years ago? Would people who know you say this is more like the real you or would they think it is a put on?

In an odd way this is a test of your submissiveness. Your ex's actions are really none of your damn business other than the fact that he is communicating with your current play partner. A true Sub would state the concern to your current play partner but then accept his decision without reservation, not grudgingly. Maybe you aren't as Sub as you think.

While I have issues with at least one statement per paragraph here, I think I will limit myself to this;

You have no right or authority to define "true sub" or tell this woman what she is or is not.

No one does.

 

[MeltformySir]

Personally I don't think people change in any material way. It often seems that way because early in our lives we are conditioned by our surroundings and want to please those who raise us and guide our early years. Unfortunately a lot of parents/teachers/bosses try to mold who we will be - it doesn't work but it can fuck us up for decades trying to find our true selves (if they ever do). So when we see changes in people it is usually just that they are finally coming to grips with their true selves or reacting to external pressure but really fooling themselves.

Often the people closest to us see our true nature better than we do. I tend to think that strong dominant or submissive tendencies are difficult to hide, so it seems unlikely one would just happen to uncover them after 30+ years. Seems more like he is trying to be something he is not.

But then that assumes you have an objective perspective. Maybe your life conditioning has colored your view of him. In this day and age there is lots of pressure for men to be milquetoast and women to be tigers. Maybe you were both fooling yourself trying to play the role you thought you should. It sounds as though you "discovered" your own submissiveness fairly recently or did you know it all along and just came out a couple years ago? Would people who know you say this is more like the real you or would they think it is a put on?

In an odd way this is a test of your submissiveness. Your ex's actions are really none of your damn business other than the fact that he is communicating with your current play partner. A true Sub would state the concern to your current play partner but then accept his decision without reservation, not grudgingly. Maybe you aren't as Sub as you think.

You make some excellent points, especially in the first couple of paragraphs of your response. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I do need to accept the fact that although I have known him intimately for almost 30 years, he's got facets to him that he never showed me. I, on the other hand, asked for various things I needed as a submissive and he was not able to deliver them. I worked for years and years trying to figure out how to get what i needed within the confines of my marriage. I went to counseling, I read, I did everything I could think of to make myself as healthy as possible. I also tried to support him in that quest, bur realizing that I can't change him or make him want to change or make improvements. Our marital issues, though, went much, much deeper than anything to do with D/s issues or sexual issues or anything like that.

Edited to add: I should have said his quest. I have tried to support him as much as possible to reach his life dreams, but serious and chronic depression did not allow him to make a lot of forward progress. He's said this, it's not a judgement I am putting on him. Honestly, I don't really care much about him one way or the other any more except I want him to leave my friends alone.

I am not too worried about whether or not I am as "submissive as I think I am". I know what I am and what I have to offer, and the man who is smart enough to recognize it is lucky indeed. No, my ex's choices regarding the lifestyle are not any of my business except that he's using other people to manipulate me, and that's not acceptable to me. As far as not just accepting my play partner's word, he's not "my Dom". I am working on understanding his point of view, which is why I am talking about it here and getting other opinions. I have acquiesced to him and am learning to not only submit in that way, but to do it with a full and honest heart, from a place of understanding and accepting it and not just going through the motions. I'm getting there and getting better at it, but it's not an overnight process to just listen to someone else without building up the trust first. I trust him implicitly and therefore am getting better and better at just saying "Yes, Sir," without having to say "But why??" I'm overly analytical though, so it's hard to give up the constant quest for answers to why why why.

 

[MeltformySir]

OP, the actions of the ex would concern me less than the actions of the current partner. If you have expressed that it makes you uncomfortable then I find it more odd that he would continue to engage in communication with your ex.

I loved the rest of your post, but wanted to address this part specifically. There is a lot more to it than I have been able to share here, especially my play partner's point of view about it all. He's looking at the big picture, I tend to look at the "fix it right now" point of view. He's right, I agree with what he is doing, and I'm good with it. If we did what my initial reaction to do is, we end up with long term problems with my ex rather than being able to find a reasonable solution for all of us.

 

[SlutAddicted]

You make some excellent points, especially in the first couple of paragraphs of your response. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I do need to accept the fact that although I have known him intimately for almost 30 years, he's got facets to him that he never showed me. I, on the other hand, asked for various things I needed as a submissive and he was not able to deliver them. I worked for years and years trying to figure out how to get what i needed within the confines of my marriage. I went to counseling, I read, I did everything I could think of to make myself as healthy as possible. I also tried to support him in that quest, bur realizing that I can't change him or make him want to change or make improvements. Our marital issues, though, went much, much deeper than anything to do with D/s issues or sexual issues or anything like that.

I am not too worried about whether or not I am as "submissive as I think I am". I know what I am and what I have to offer, and the man who is smart enough to recognize it is lucky indeed. No, my ex's choices regarding the lifestyle are not any of my business except that he's using other people to manipulate me, and that's not acceptable to me. As far as not just accepting my play partner's word, he's not "my Dom". I am working on understanding his point of view, which is why I am talking about it here and getting other opinions. I have acquiesced to him and am learning to not only submit in that way, but to do it with a full and honest heart, from a place of understanding and accepting it and not just going through the motions. I'm getting there and getting better at it, but it's not an overnight process to just listen to someone else without building up the trust first. I trust him implicitly and therefore am getting better and better at just saying "Yes, Sir," without having to say "But why??" I'm overly analytical though, so it's hard to give up the constant quest for answers to why why why.

As others have mentioned it is not for me to judge whether you are a true Sub or not. Even as a Sub I wouldn't expect you to ignore your own safety. And at no point did you say that your play partner was a full time gig or just play so there was no reason for me to presuppose that he was the Dom of your whole life.

However, your own comments about your ex suggest a strong judgment that he is a poser. And I was under the impression that you want direct feedback so my comments were those of devil's advocate not accuser. You may well be bang on about your ex but it seemed relevant to challenge you on the same possibility and whether or not you have the right to judge the legitimacy of your ex's Dom nature.

My point about change was that I don't think people change so much as they find their true selves over time. To one other poster's comments the water bug was always destined to be a firefly - the metaphor gets stretched because we are talking about a physical transformation, but in a sense it was never just a water bug it just didn't know that at the beginning. From this point comes the question is your ex posing now or has he finally found his true self? And from this question comes a need to understand what if any conditioning has he experienced that may have deferred the finding of his true self.

Men today - here on this planet in the last 50 years - are pressured to be politically correct and buffer their animal instincts. I am not saying that is a bad thing. It is a logical response to the misogynist history of our society. Nor am I saying that pressure has been successful. But that fact that there are still sexist assholes in the world doesn't change my view that for a man under 50 yes much of our lives society's view is that we should be more sensitive and less aggressive/dominant. Maybe this is part of your ex's experience.

During the same period the rise of the feminist movement has encouraged women to be more aggressive and establish their equality. Again for good and valid reasons. Obviously equality is a different issue than Dom/Sub. But you have to have been living on another planet for much of the last 50 years not to see that many feminists and even garden variety progressives would see being submissive as a bad thing for a woman. I don't know if that societal expectation is part of the reason why it took you a while to find your submissive nature, but if so couldn't the same logic apply to your ex?

The mere need to go sucking up to you existing partner suggests your ex isn't a Dom and is really just trying to weasel his way back into your life. I wouldn't for a moment accept your current partner's assurances - I would set a clear bright line to keep your ex completely the fuck out of your life. But every story has two sides and since your ex isn't in this conversation I was trying to offer an alternative point of view.

 

[SlutAddicted]

While I have issues with at least one statement per paragraph here, I think I will limit myself to this;

You have no right or authority to define "true sub" or tell this woman what she is or is not.

No one does.

You didn't seem to have any problem coming to a conclusion about her ex based upon one side of the story.

 

[SlutAddicted]

This planet you have found, may I ask its coordinates? You're probably being confronted with the realization that there are people who don't think that being a Man entitles you to valuable prizes for having a penis and sometimes we don't have to hide from society. Rarely. We're glad you noticed, however we're not in charge of anything, we'd like to fucking exist here too, that's all.



Maybe she's a good judge of her own safety and has reasons to get jumpy when the ex still seems to be fixated on things on the periphery of her sex life. Maybe it's actually fucking dangerous for women leaving relationships and maybe if her partner has any self preservation he'll listen to her.

What this has to do with whether a person is happy serving their partner is beyond me. I get service but I also realize that there's some shit about my partner that she knows better than I do.

Actually I was raised on this planet to be respectful of women, regard them as equal and reminded at every opportunity that being a white male is not a source of entitlement. The only thing that is not of this planet is the idea that this message is new. Lots of guys haven't gotten it yet - I understand that. My point is that the message is there and we have been inundated with it for a long time now and it is starting to have an affect. That is all good but in this context, yes a dominant male is constantly encouraged to dial it down and that in turn will discourage him from finding his true self.

 

[Curious_in_Cali]

I loved the rest of your post, but wanted to address this part specifically. There is a lot more to it than I have been able to share here, especially my play partner's point of view about it all. He's looking at the big picture, I tend to look at the "fix it right now" point of view. He's right, I agree with what he is doing, and I'm good with it. If we did what my initial reaction to do is, we end up with long term problems with my ex rather than being able to find a reasonable solution for all of us.

Of course it is far more complex than you can express here, I just hope the priorities of managing the realtionship you are in rather than spending energy on things, situations, and people that are not within your scope of control are the front runners. Sometimes the intention of collaboration and compromise morph into frustration and manipulation faster than we realize.

I am a huge believer in "begin as you mean to continue" as it helps to make determinations toward building a future you can live and lean into. If an ongoing dialogue between your ex and your current is something that makes sense, then cool beans. Then it's a matter of you settling the dust on that being the norm. If this dialogue will eventually end, then why not end it now?

Please know that I honor the complexities and messiness of these relationships within a community, but ultimately this is about building a place that YOU feel safe and nurtured in. My granny was great to remind me at times that it's the weeds that get watered that grow. So again, please make sure you only water what you want in your tomorrow gardens.

Please take good care.

 

[MeltformySir]

Of course it is far more complex than you can express here, I just hope the priorities of managing the realtionship you are in rather than spending energy on things, situations, and people that are not within your scope of control are the front runners. Sometimes the intention of collaboration and compromise morph into frustration and manipulation faster than we realize.

I am a huge believer in "begin as you mean to continue" as it helps to make determinations toward building a future you can live and lean into. If an ongoing dialogue between your ex and your current is something that makes sense, then cool beans. Then it's a matter of you settling the dust on that being the norm. If this dialogue will eventually end, then why not end it now?

Please know that I honor the complexities and messiness of these relationships within a community, but ultimately this is about building a place that YOU feel safe and nurtured in. My granny was great to remind me at times that it's the weeds that get watered that grow. So again, please make sure you only water what you want in your tomorrow gardens.

Please take good care.

I appreciate your thoughts very much. I will definitely think about what you've said and try to ensure I am only watering the desirable things as much as possible. Thank you so much.

 

[MeltformySir]

As others have mentioned it is not for me to judge whether you are a true Sub or not. Even as a Sub I wouldn't expect you to ignore your own safety. And at no point did you say that your play partner was a full time gig or just play so there was no reason for me to presuppose that he was the Dom of your whole life.

However, your own comments about your ex suggest a strong judgment that he is a poser. And I was under the impression that you want direct feedback so my comments were those of devil's advocate not accuser. You may well be bang on about your ex but it seemed relevant to challenge you on the same possibility and whether or not you have the right to judge the legitimacy of your ex's Dom nature.

My point about change was that I don't think people change so much as they find their true selves over time. To one other poster's comments the water bug was always destined to be a firefly - the metaphor gets stretched because we are talking about a physical transformation, but in a sense it was never just a water bug it just didn't know that at the beginning. From this point comes the question is your ex posing now or has he finally found his true self? And from this question comes a need to understand what if any conditioning has he experienced that may have deferred the finding of his true self.

Men today - here on this planet in the last 50 years - are pressured to be politically correct and buffer their animal instincts. I am not saying that is a bad thing. It is a logical response to the misogynist history of our society. Nor am I saying that pressure has been successful. But that fact that there are still sexist assholes in the world doesn't change my view that for a man under 50 yes much of our lives society's view is that we should be more sensitive and less aggressive/dominant. Maybe this is part of your ex's experience.

During the same period the rise of the feminist movement has encouraged women to be more aggressive and establish their equality. Again for good and valid reasons. Obviously equality is a different issue than Dom/Sub. But you have to have been living on another planet for much of the last 50 years not to see that many feminists and even garden variety progressives would see being submissive as a bad thing for a woman. I don't know if that societal expectation is part of the reason why it took you a while to find your submissive nature, but if so couldn't the same logic apply to your ex?

The mere need to go sucking up to you existing partner suggests your ex isn't a Dom and is really just trying to weasel his way back into your life. I wouldn't for a moment accept your current partner's assurances - I would set a clear bright line to keep your ex completely the fuck out of your life. But every story has two sides and since your ex isn't in this conversation I was trying to offer an alternative point of view.

In case my previous response wasn't clear, I understand the alternative point of view and your reasons for presenting it. You're presenting good things for me to think about and it is exactly what I wanted. It's appreciated and I thank you. I just don't have anyone "in real life" to talk to about this too much, and I do need to vent sometimes about my almost ex. He's a piece of work at times, but mostly he's a good guy who's trying to do better. I truly hope he finds his path and happiness, because he's the father of my beautiful children and his happiness will be a big part of their lives, and vice versa if he stays unhappy. I'm just so very excited for the future, and while I wish it was going to be ex-free as regards the lifestyle, I get it that it's none of my business and I can't do anything about it. The non-subbie part of me rebels against that at times, but I never said I was perfect. LOL

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You didn't seem to have any problem coming to a conclusion about her ex based upon one side of the story.

You'd better read my "conclusion" once more, and see if you can figure out what I came to a conclusion about.

 

[SlutAddicted]

You'd better read my "conclusion" once more, and see if you can figure out what I came to a conclusion about.

Exactly. And you should reread my original comment - I did not try to define true sub or tell her who she is as you asserted. I asked questions and I challenged positions.

I appreciate that sometimes people use such wording as a passive aggressive way of asserting a point but that is not what I was doing. I was taking a sincere Devil's advocate position because I believe that is often the most useful way of helping someone reflect on their own situation. And when a person is asking views on a third party who is not in the conversation I think it is especially important to realize there are two sides to every story.

This OP did not seem to be hurt or seeking emotional support but rather genuinely analytical. Analysis consists of looking at other perspectives and holding your own perspective up to scrutiny. She seems plenty strong enough to engage in such scrutiny and her responses to me confirm that perspective.

 

[SlutAddicted]

In case my previous response wasn't clear, I understand the alternative point of view and your reasons for presenting it. You're presenting good things for me to think about and it is exactly what I wanted. It's appreciated and I thank you. I just don't have anyone "in real life" to talk to about this too much, and I do need to vent sometimes about my almost ex. He's a piece of work at times, but mostly he's a good guy who's trying to do better. I truly hope he finds his path and happiness, because he's the father of my beautiful children and his happiness will be a big part of their lives, and vice versa if he stays unhappy. I'm just so very excited for the future, and while I wish it was going to be ex-free as regards the lifestyle, I get it that it's none of my business and I can't do anything about it. The non-subbie part of me rebels against that at times, but I never said I was perfect. LOL

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.

You are welcome.

I must admit a bias here. I think that sometimes when people come to us in frustration or disappointment our knee-jerk reaction is to be supportive regardless of the circumstances. Sometimes that is the right thing to do but sometimes it just reinforces bad behaviour or distorted perspective. We need both compassion and honesty.

My guess is that your ex knows that part of the reason the relationship ended is because he wasn't "dominant enough." And while manliness and dominance aren't the same thing we do connect the two. So maybe in his mind you broke up with him because he isn't man enough and by extension your new partner is. That is tough to accept. And maybe his contact with the new partner is in part a way of establishing the relative manliness for himself.

If I was talking to your ex I would tell him that manliness and strength aren't all about dominance or aggression. In fact many of the strongest men I know are comparatively passive or quiet. Most of the "out" gay people I know are stronger than most. Meanwhile many aggressive or pushy people are actually just covering up insecurity.

You prefer a different control dynamic than your ex. In some ways that is akin to being more outdoorsy or more of a city girl or any number of other lifestyle preferences than can make people incompatible. Him trying to be a Dom isn't a matter of a weak man pretending he is strong. It is more akin to taking up rock climbing when you would rather be playing a guitar.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Exactly.

exactly what?

And you should reread my original comment - I did not try to define true sub or tell her who she is as you asserted. I asked questions and I challenged positions.

"A true sub would..."

I appreciate that sometimes people use such wording as a passive aggressive way of asserting a point but that is not what I was doing. I was taking a sincere Devil's advocate position because I believe that is often the most useful way of helping someone reflect on their own situation. And when a person is asking views on a third party who is not in the conversation I think it is especially important to realize there are two sides to every story.

This OP did not seem to be hurt or seeking emotional support but rather genuinely analytical. Analysis consists of looking at other perspectives and holding your own perspective up to scrutiny. She seems plenty strong enough to engage in such scrutiny and her responses to me confirm that perspective.

I appreciate your restatement and clarification. Perhaps you need to re-read your own post and figure out what made several people -- not only me-- misconstrue your intent.

You have been much clearer since that first post, so that's good.

 

[SlutAddicted]

exactly what?"A true sub would..." I appreciate your restatement and clarification. Perhaps you need to re-read your own post and figure out what made several people -- not only me-- misconstrue your intent.

You have been much clearer since that first post, so that's good.

The "exactly" means yes I did stretch the application of your comment just like you stretched the application of mine by picking the part you didn't like and isolating it out of context.

The OP does not appear to have misconstrued my intent from the first comment. People frequently don't read very closely, preferring to pick-up on the points that don't sit well with them or interpret through the lense of what matters to them.

For instance, while the OP made a comment about her ex's potential future conduct towards other partners I didn't perceive her as being fearful for her own safety and I did not read that as a central aspect of her concern. Having seen Curious-in-Cali's comment I reread the original post with that possibility in mind and I still don't see that nor do the OPs subsequent comments indicate that fear for her own physical safety was a central theme. Likewise my perspective that people don't change very much but rather find their true selves was clearly stated as an opinion on how we perceive change and the human psyche. It had nothing to do with holding people down, denying the possibility for change, asserting that it is easy to find our true selves or telling fireflies they are nothing but water bugs.

With due respect to all opinions I think the main reason people misconstrue my intent had more to do with the fact that I chose to challenge the OPs perspective rather than jump to comfort her. Yes, I said "a true sub would....." but taken in context without any preconceived notion about me I think it was clear that at most I was stating that as view not asserting some kind of universal truth. And I certainly didn't tell her who she is or is not - you chose to infer that but it isn't supported by my comments.

As articulated to the OP, sometimes the last thing we need is a room full of like minded people to listen to our side of the story, agree and exchange hugs. A lot of people make conclusions based upon tone or their own bias about the speaker rather than actual content. Each commenter who misconstrued my comments projected assumptions into the dialogue that don't come from my comments. The OP seems to understand that very well and seems to be strong enough to benefit from a challenging line of thought rather than get her back up. And since she is the one I was talking to that is all that matters.

 

[MeltformySir]

The "exactly" means yes I did stretch the application of your comment just like you stretched the application of mine by picking the part you didn't like and isolating it out of context.

The OP does not appear to have misconstrued my intent from the first comment. People frequently don't read very closely, preferring to pick-up on the points that don't sit well with them or interpret through the lense of what matters to them.

For instance, while the OP made a comment about her ex's potential future conduct towards other partners I didn't perceive her as being fearful for her own safety and I did not read that as a central aspect of her concern. Having seen Curious-in-Cali's comment I reread the original post with that possibility in mind and I still don't see that nor do the OPs subsequent comments indicate that fear for her own physical safety was a central theme. Likewise my perspective that people don't change very much but rather find their true selves was clearly stated as an opinion on how we perceive change and the human psyche. It had nothing to do with holding people down, denying the possibility for change, asserting that it is easy to find our true selves or telling fireflies they are nothing but water bugs.

With due respect to all opinions I think the main reason people misconstrue my intent had more to do with the fact that I chose to challenge the OPs perspective rather than jump to comfort her. Yes, I said "a true sub would....." but taken in context without any preconceived notion about me I think it was clear that at most I was stating that as view not asserting some kind of universal truth. And I certainly didn't tell her who she is or is not - you chose to infer that but it isn't supported by my comments.

As articulated to the OP, sometimes the last thing we need is a room full of like minded people to listen to our side of the story, agree and exchange hugs. A lot of people make conclusions based upon tone or their own bias about the speaker rather than actual content. Each commenter who misconstrued my comments projected assumptions into the dialogue that don't come from my comments. The OP seems to understand that very well and seems to be strong enough to benefit from a challenging line of thought rather than get her back up. And since she is the one I was talking to that is all that matters.

I quite agree. I may not like it, or agree with your opinions, but there's no point not getting opposing viewpoints. That's what I asked for, it's what I needed to get a more balanced viewpoint of what's going on. I wouldn't even worry about it except it was pissing me off so much and I don't need that negative energy. So, I am just ....poof....letting it go. lol

Thanks again for your opinions, to everyone who's contributed to this thread.

 

[Netzach]

Actually I was raised on this planet to be respectful of women, regard them as equal and reminded at every opportunity that being a white male is not a source of entitlement. The only thing that is not of this planet is the idea that this message is new. Lots of guys haven't gotten it yet - I understand that. My point is that the message is there and we have been inundated with it for a long time now and it is starting to have an affect. That is all good but in this context, yes a dominant male is constantly encouraged to dial it down and that in turn will discourage him from finding his true self.

Oh yeah, because society really has a word equivalent to "bitch" to police male confidence. You have no fucking idea, stop talking out your ass. 50 years does not answer for 3000. I am seriously over this foolishness. The BDSM community has this "Femdoms have it GREAT men are SO INVALIDATED" mythos that needs to die. It's facile and it's all over the place - because there are few of us to bother disagreeing.

Why do you think there are few of us hanging out with the rest of the perverts? WHY? Because this. Please use your brain if you are so committed to men not being on top of the pyramid in the perv-o-sphere and everywhere else. Stop speaking on behalf of what price feminism when feminism is the only reason you have women to even perv-o-sphere with.

This idea that there's a sexual Dominant lurking within every guy who isn't somehow a pussy is one of the putrid artifacts of "we're not there yet." A poseur is CREATED by this pressure and this narrative and what happens if you display curiosity about switching or submission as a guy. (Hint - feminism isn't why that's a problematic position to have.)

Most people are submissive, sexually. Most people would like to have sex with something like a vibrator that they don't even have to switch on themselves, have serial seismic orgasms and tune out of the demands of the world for a few hours. The rest is society, like Auden said. Original Poster - your ex is probably most people. Most people are probably most people.

Finding yourself as a Dominant male is not an identity in search of a road map and without any modelling or validation. Jesus Christ, you have Joseph Campbell and every fucking story, and you're whining about 2 seconds on the historical clock.

Let's stop with the female power thing, because men are having to do a little introspection "finding their true selves." Welcome to the rest of the world, boys.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The "exactly" means yes I did stretch the application of your comment just like you stretched the application of mine by picking the part you didn't like and isolating it out of context.

The OP does not appear to have misconstrued my intent from the first comment. People frequently don't read very closely, preferring to pick-up on the points that don't sit well with them or interpret through the lense of what matters to them.

I figured she didn't reaqd your post very well.

For instance, while the OP made a comment about her ex's potential future conduct towards other partners I didn't perceive her as being fearful for her own safety and I did not read that as a central aspect of her concern. Having seen Curious-in-Cali's comment I reread the original post with that possibility in mind and I still don't see that nor do the OPs subsequent comments indicate that fear for her own physical safety was a central theme. Likewise my perspective that people don't change very much but rather find their true selves was clearly stated as an opinion on how we perceive change and the human psyche. It had nothing to do with holding people down, denying the possibility for change, asserting that it is easy to find our true selves or telling fireflies they are nothing but water bugs.

I won't say "Of course you don't see that." I don't either in this particular case, but I can understand CiC's reaction.
I guess you would have had to be there once, and not very man men have been-- or anyways, not to admit it.
Your perspective that people don't change very much is valid enough. It's your perspective after all. When I think of the ways I have changed in my lifetime however-- just for instance-- and many of the other very fluid people I know-- well, I guess you could say that my essential fluidity remains unchanged.

With due respect to all opinions I think the main reason people misconstrue my intent had more to do with the fact that I chose to challenge the OPs perspective rather than jump to comfort her. Yes, I said "a true sub would....." but taken in context without any preconceived notion about me I think it was clear that at most I was stating that as view not asserting some kind of universal truth. And I certainly didn't tell her who she is or is not - you chose to infer that but it isn't supported by my comments.

The reason I jump on you is because you have been clumsy in your phrasing that have invalidated what you think you have said. Nothing more.

How many more ways would you like me to phrase that? Or are you going to continue to map emotional reasons on me?

As articulated to the OP, sometimes the last thing we need is a room full of like minded people to listen to our side of the story, agree and exchange hugs. A lot of people make conclusions based upon tone or their own bias about the speaker rather than actual content. Each commenter who misconstrued my comments projected assumptions into the dialogue that don't come from my comments. The OP seems to understand that very well and seems to be strong enough to benefit from a challenging line of thought rather than get her back up. And since she is the one I was talking to that is all that matters.

I have no bias about you one way or another. All I know about you is your words, and they are exactly what I react to, no more or less then that. I'm aspie, and I say, to the best of my ability, exactly what I mean with no hidden nothing. You do not have to imagine jack shit.

Seeing people lay down the law about what a true sub is or isn't will always impel me to speak up and call bullshit. It's so damaging. I've done a lot of repairs-- nearly twenty years now.

Allow me to suggest a slightly different response that you might try next time; "Dammit, I did phrase that clumsily. Mea culpa, of course there is no True Sub law anywhere."

 

[SlutAddicted]

Oh yeah, because society really has a word equivalent to "bitch" to police male confidence. You have no fucking idea, stop talking out your ass. 50 years does not answer for 3000. I am seriously over this foolishness. The BDSM community has this "Femdoms have it GREAT men are SO INVALIDATED" mythos that needs to die. It's facile and it's all over the place - because there are few of us to bother disagreeing.

Why do you think there are few of us hanging out with the rest of the perverts? WHY? Because this. Please use your brain if you are so committed to men not being on top of the pyramid in the perv-o-sphere and everywhere else. Stop speaking on behalf of what price feminism when feminism is the only reason you have women to even perv-o-sphere with.

This idea that there's a sexual Dominant lurking within every guy who isn't somehow a pussy is one of the putrid artifacts of "we're not there yet." A poseur is CREATED by this pressure and this narrative and what happens if you display curiosity about switching or submission as a guy. (Hint - feminism isn't why that's a problematic position to have.)

Most people are submissive, sexually. Most people would like to have sex with something like a vibrator that they don't even have to switch on themselves, have serial seismic orgasms and tune out of the demands of the world for a few hours. The rest is society, like Auden said. Original Poster - your ex is probably most people. Most people are probably most people.

Finding yourself as a Dominant male is not an identity in search of a road map and without any modelling or validation. Jesus Christ, you have Joseph Campbell and every fucking story, and you're whining about 2 seconds on the historical clock.

Let's stop with the female power thing, because men are having to do a little introspection "finding their true selves." Welcome to the rest of the world, boys.

I don't really think I am whining about anything including feminism or suggesting men are hard done by. I am simply observing that the entirely valid efforts to create a more gender equal world is a factor in how men perceive themselves and their conduct. Similarly the misogynist trends of the past also affected how men perceived themselves and their conduct.

There was no suggestion that all men have a hidden Dom. Prior to the feminist movement guys were encouraged to be "dominant" for lack of a better word and now they are encouraged to be less so. That is a good thing. But for analytical purposes it is nonetheless outside influence to be or not be something which can distort our own self impression.

 

[SlutAddicted]

I figured she didn't reaqd your post very well. I won't say "Of course you don't see that." I don't either in this particular case, but I can understand CiC's reaction.
I guess you would have had to be there once, and not very man men have been-- or anyways, not to admit it.
Your perspective that people don't change very much is valid enough. It's your perspective after all. When I think of the ways I have changed in my lifetime however-- just for instance-- and many of the other very fluid people I know-- well, I guess you could say that my essential fluidity remains unchanged. The reason I jump on you is because you have been clumsy in your phrasing that have invalidated what you think you have said. Nothing more.

How many more ways would you like me to phrase that? Or are you going to continue to map emotional reasons on me? I have no bias about you one way or another. All I know about you is your words, and they are exactly what I react to, no more or less then that. I'm aspie, and I say, to the best of my ability, exactly what I mean with no hidden nothing. You do not have to imagine jack shit.

Seeing people lay down the law about what a true sub is or isn't will always impel me to speak up and call bullshit. It's so damaging. I've done a lot of repairs-- nearly twenty years now.

Allow me to suggest a slightly different response that you might try next time; "Dammit, I did phrase that clumsily. Mea culpa, of course there is no True Sub law anywhere."

I don't have any issue with what CiC has said about physical threat and fear. I just don't think it is on point as confirmed by the OP and your own reading of the situation.

By the same token I don't have any issue with what Nitzach has said except that I believe she is criticizing me for things I haven't said and/or perspectives I haven't supported. I didn't say feminism was negative. I didn't say men are oppressed or invalidated. I didn't say all men have a Dom lurking within. And to the extent that feminism has encouraged men and women to see themselves in a different light I have indicated that I see that as a good thing. In fact there is nothing in any of my comments to suggest that I see feminism as a negative thing. My point is and always has been that ALL outside influences affect how we see ourselves and can distort our self perception. It is a simple statement of fact that in more recent decades feminism has been one of those influences - there is no reason in this context why that influence on the man being discussed can't be explored objectively. Environmentalism has a notable impact on how I perceive myself and my actions - that is kind of the point and making that observation doesn't mean I am suggesting the influence is negative.

I don't need you to state your position in more ways. I don't lack understanding. I simply don't agree. The OP understood what I said and you did not. Since I was talking to her and you are intent on being right in every way I can live with that outcome.

With due respect CiC and Netzach didn't even look at what I said - they saw a man talking about feminism and went into attack mode - mapping onto me all manner of negative intents in the same manner as this sentence unfairly maps motivation onto them.

 

[Netzach]

I don't really think I am whining about anything including feminism or suggesting men are hard done by. I am simply observing that the entirely valid efforts to create a more gender equal world is a factor in how men perceive themselves and their conduct. Similarly the misogynist trends of the past also affected how men perceived themselves and their conduct.

There was no suggestion that all men have a hidden Dom. Prior to the feminist movement guys were encouraged to be "dominant" for lack of a better word and now they are encouraged to be less so. That is a good thing. But for analytical purposes it is nonetheless outside influence to be or not be something which can distort our own self impression.

Know what distorts your self impression? Not having any examples or words for what you are that are not a slur. Know what else distorts your self impression? Seeing your sexuality everywhere you see it as nothing other than the same cartoon image that caused you to recognize it 25 years ago in the first place. Know what else distorts your self impression? Coming into the scene and immediately being lobbied "to be the switch you really are, because you don't actually know anything yet" and being stupid and people pleasing enough and afraid enough of being a bitch to NOT say "nah, not so much." Know what else distorts your self image? Eventually becoming so fucking tired of it all as to have no patience with YET ANOTHER person pointing out that "don't hit a woman son" is messing with his head beyond belief.

With all due respect, Netzach DID look at what you said, has looked at it, smelled it, seen it, rolled in it, and is done with it. You want to think after you've already opened your mouth and dropped that PLUS a "true subs leave their personal safety to their partner and the farts of pixies, you should butt out of your ex's stalkiness."

 

[Stella_Omega]

I have a problem whenever people frame subjective things in universal language.

That's all.

 

[Curious_in_Cali]

I think the points and opinions I was trying to express were missed. I'll try again.

Ok first and foremost, my example of my debate with my ex was simply one to describe that he could not fathom others "wet paint" until he touched it himself. The debate was about why people in his life (other than me) were "freaking out" about his aggressive boundary ignoring behavior that he found to be reasonable behaviour. I did not intend to suggest the OP was in or expressed that she was in any threat of physical harm.

That said, when SA suggested that the OPs emotional reactions were possibly due to faults in her behavior or even sense of self while I concurrently found her response of being frustrated with the lack of (what I have interpreted as) respect completely reasonable, I was compelled to respond directly to it. My intention was to suggest that given that everything that the OP stated about her "wet paint" made me believe that the ex was not behaving reasonably (regardless of his kinky letter size) and that her emotional response to all if it seemed reasonable to me. In addition, having an ex that ignored boundaries for attempting continued contact was something cringe makingly familiar to me, and maybe that made it easier for me to believe.

SA, my intention was to say that given how you responded to her reaction as maybe there is something false or wrong with her made me think that maybe you could not believe her paint was wet because you have simply not had experienced anything like it. The behavior of the ex and the current seemed to raise flags for me too, so it was odd to me that I read in you post the suggestion that her strained compliance was actually questioning her submissiveness. I sense from your later posts that you would agree that it is our job to protect, honor and nourish ourselves regardless of what labels we wear. It is in forums like these where there are so many more readers than there are posters, that securing safety and establishing trust with someone that is trustworthy is critical for all of us to champion, but maybe especially for those that have a need to follow. When boundaries are ignored, trust is strained or broken and that simply has to be addressed.

If someone finds themselves questioning their comfort and safety and find a need to act on that, it does not make them less submissive, it just keeps them safe and healthy. I am not less sexual if I'm miserable dating a certain guy and need to break up with him, I'm just with the wrong guy. The ways I have had to wrestle with my identity and what felt right while navigating a life that went entirely different directions than I had planned should probably have me ready for the WWF any day now... So yeah, it struck a nerve with me. FWIW, my post was actually intended in a much more passive observation tone than I guess it came across.

Lastly, with all that said, my intention of using dragonflies and water bugs as an example was to show that I generally disagree that we are only what we may someday realize or transform into. We are never without identity, even if we lack the clarity of definition or understanding of who we are well enough to express or even live into it. I think humanity could benefit from the practice of allowing acceptance "as is" instead of a "only if" or "someday when".

I hope that helps.

 

[SlutAddicted]

Know what distorts your self impression? Not having any examples or words for what you are that are not a slur. Know what else distorts your self impression? Seeing your sexuality everywhere you see it as nothing other than the same cartoon image that caused you to recognize it 25 years ago in the first place. Know what else distorts your self impression? Coming into the scene and immediately being lobbied "to be the switch you really are, because you don't actually know anything yet" and being stupid and people pleasing enough and afraid enough of being a bitch to NOT say "nah, not so much." Know what else distorts your self image? Eventually becoming so fucking tired of it all as to have no patience with YET ANOTHER person pointing out that "don't hit a woman son" is messing with his head beyond belief.

With all due respect, Netzach DID look at what you said, has looked at it, smelled it, seen it, rolled in it, and is done with it. You want to think after you've already opened your mouth and dropped that PLUS a "true subs leave their personal safety to their partner and the farts of pixies, you should butt out of your ex's stalkiness."

I can see how all of those things distort and affect your perspective. And I would like to think that "don't hit a woman son" is so blindingly obvious that it doesn't need to be said but sadly that is not true. However, I sincerely don't think I tried to suggest that this message was messing with his head beyond belief. And I did not try to establish any comparability or hierarchy of oppression or claim that men are hard done by. Clearly women have and continue to endure far more than men. All I said is that the feminist message has an affect on how men and women see themselves, which is kind of the point of the message. And in this case the entirely valid need to convey to men a message to be less dominant and aggressive is directly relevant to the topic.

I think the difference in our approach is that I did not start from the perspective that her ex presented a danger and you did. To the extent that you thought I was overlooking this possibility I can see how that would trigger a negative response. But please consider my comments in the context that the OP did not perceive danger from her ex and I would never suggest a casual or careless response if she did.

In many ways this whole discussion is indicative of the experience of men. I have not written a single word that indicates that I think men have it worse than women. Nor have I attempted to minimize the female perspective. Why can't I talk about the male perspective without being deemed insensitive or oblivious to the female perspective? Feminism is a factor in how I (and every man I know) see myself and the world. I think it is mostly a positive factor, but I didn't say it was good, bad or indifferent - only that it is a factor.