Fighting for your Sub??

JMohegan said:

I agree completely.

Can you not see that *you* are trying to take charge in your opening post's test scenario? You are trying to manipulate the D's behavior with immobility and a vapid glance.

I don't see anything wrong with the relationship desires you've expressed. It's the test that I think is goofy.

Click to expand...

Please know that I do not mean this with any sort of snark... I am genuinely curious what kind of test you would find to be more appropriate for a pyl type when it comes to establishing trust in a new relationship. I think with all interactions that being courteous and respectful are a good default, but trusting as a default seems so naive to me. What filters would you recommend for a pyl type to weed out those that are on the spectrum of unsavory opportunists to not "a good fit"? What is a "better" way to test the waters in your opinion?

I totally get that there is a rainbow of flavor. I totally get that bratting and resistence are a valid mode and a valid way to play. What I do not accept is this kind of bullshit being thrown at people who might scarcely know their way around the words BDSM because some crazy bitch designates them "Dominant enough" in her mind, setting these guys up for - Jesus, people. This is one of those times where I suddenly relate to and feel for Dominant males, savor it while it lasts, guys.

Some litmus tests for trust in the early days of a relationship with a Dom or anyone else if you are balanced enough to act like a normal person for five minutes.

Does he call when he says he's gonna call?

Does he do what he says he's gonna do?

Does he have people around him who have good things to say about him when he leaves the room and does it sound "real" when they do?

Does he tip the waitress and the waiter equally well?

How does he treat people in one-down positions to him socially (parking attendants, little old ladies, little children)

Does he have some reason EVERY SINGLE ex girlfriend was a bitch or crazy? (HUGE red flag)

Is he nice to you?

Is he fun to be around?

So, fuck if I am all these things and I say "sweetie pass me the brush off my dresser" because I'm about to actually spank your ass and get you off - why the hell should I suffer the humiliation, rejection, and weirdness of "a blank look?" What does that tell me about the VALUE of what I bring to the table? And why am I supposed to countenance that? Why am I only a respect-worthy sexual partner if my rage-meter pops when someone else wants it popped and I behave myself in some psycho skinner box of kink?

I already imagine a lot of amen-ing when people picture me, and my boobies and attendant girl parts saying this about a guy sub, so why not the gander, eh?

I know it's so much less hot than manipulating someone you don't know these things about to spank you over the ass, or pull your pants down and stick his peen in you, and then cry and sob that he was an asshole when he was willing to do that with someone he hardly knows and turns out to be a dickhole.

Yeah there are a lot of guys who are weak and make me laugh too. And guys who cave in to their dick enough to gamble a "she said" revision of a night like this are first in line. Because one little hangover where someone like you discovers a stripe on her ass where she said she didn't want one can be the end of life as he knows it. A strong man with his shit together knows what he wants and knows how to instill feelings of security in people around him, and thinks 3 steps ahead of his hard on.

Everyone has to establish trust, and in my book everyone should have some vague idea what the fuck he/she wants out of the exchange.

When someone pulls this shit on me, and I don't know why it's happening, after insisting they're submissive and WANT to bottom to me, I don't know them and I will never trust them.

I have handed grown men their full fees back and shown them the door over this issue, because I have NOT WANTED the instability even in a customer. Believe me, 250 when you haven't got your rent in and it's the 18th is even harder to pass up than some steamy pussy, but it's worth it, guys, it's worth it.

It might even be fair to KNOW what the other person actually wants out of it. You don't seem to give a fair fuck what he might want out of it, so long as he's passed YOUR little litmus tests, so what if what he wants turns out to be more than you planned on? Less? Totally different or off the wall?

Bratting with someone you know who expects you to, is one thing. Using "then make me, or I laugh at you" as a MEANS OF COMMUNICATION with a top you don't know much about is treating the other party like a tree you rub your itches on, a walking life support system for a dick and a whip and YOUR pre-fab fantasies not a person with any fantasies or wants of his own.

But fuck consensuality when it comes to the top, they never need any protection from evil or toxicity.

OP doesn't need to know whether she's D or s, she needs to work on the golden rule for a minute.

BehaviorMod said:

So, to summarize; there is a marked difference between guarding your gift of submission for someone who can earn that gift; and being cocky and/or topping from the bottom, as it were, and guiding things to go a specific way. One would do wise to make sure those lines don't blend.

Click to expand...

I like what you've said here. I think you've summed up what I've been struggling to find the words to say myself.

Curious_in_Cali said:

Please know that I do not mean this with any sort of snark... I am genuinely curious what kind of test you would find to be more appropriate for a pyl type when it comes to establishing trust in a new relationship. I think with all interactions that being courteous and respectful are a good default, but trusting as a default seems so naive to me. What filters would you recommend for a pyl type to weed out those that are on the spectrum of unsavory opportunists to not "a good fit"? What is a "better" way to test the waters in your opinion?

Click to expand...

No one is suggesting trust as a default. If anything doesn't this kind of testing mean that the cart is far far in front of the horse?

InnocentBell:

There is a man out there who wants to be married to you for the rest of his life and to love you for the rest of his life and to make you his sub and personal slave for the rest of his life. He is willing to give you exactly what you want and need but you will never find him if all you do is look for Doms and never look for Mr. Right. So many subs just assume that they are different and that they cannot find the sub relationship they want in the nonBDSM world. They are wrong. Normal everyday people are waaaaay too stereotyped as being vanilla when in reality many of them either haven't been discovered yet or haven't yet discovered themselves. There are A LOT of kinky people in the nonBDSM world. Get greedy and look for someone who can be all of the above to you.

1.) What Netzach said.

2.) Just because some people won't put up with your shit doesn't make them "posers." They're entitled to choose what they want to deal with and what they don't.

3.) Many of the kinds of people who go for what you're looking for aren't what you think they'll be. I question the inherent "dominance" of people who'll lose their shit the second they're questioned on something. Let's just leave it at that.

Netzach said:

No one is suggesting trust as a default. If anything doesn't this kind of testing mean that the cart is far far in front of the horse?

Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. To trust someone, they would have to start out as being trust worthy... Right? The line between "Howdy" and "How do you take your eggs" is rarely a simple straight one. I guess I was asking more about the "tests" that happen that JM felt were appropriate to gauge early trust worthiness in a more general sense. Not necessarily defending or judging the OP for hers.

In general, a blank stare doesn't seem a great way to communicate, no. But maybe the response to it has appeared to be a good filter for her thus far? If she has been unsuccessful in nurturing a relationship into fruition though, maybe it needs to be reconsidered. Maybe this sense is part of what sparked her to post here. If she is a defiant pyl, then this approach may be appropriate to attract the kind of PYL she needs. But if it is just a fun flirt and not indicative of who she REALLY is, then she will not be successful in attracting who she really wants. But I also agree with the other posters about the warning to be careful what you ask for.

I am not one to make suggestions on how to trust at all and appreciate the thoughts from those that are from both sides of the successful PYL/pyl relationships around here. Thank you.

The golden rule is a good one. Big fan.

subwannabe said:

InnocentBell:

There is a man out there who wants to be married to you for the rest of his life and to love you for the rest of his life and to make you his sub and personal slave for the rest of his life. He is willing to give you exactly what you want and need but you will never find him if all you do is look for Doms and never look for Mr. Right. So many subs just assume that they are different and that they cannot find the sub relationship they want in the nonBDSM world. They are wrong. Normal everyday people are waaaaay too stereotyped as being vanilla when in reality many of them either haven't been discovered yet or haven't yet discovered themselves. There are A LOT of kinky people in the nonBDSM world. Get greedy and look for someone who can be all of the above to you.

Click to expand...

Why? I mean what is the problem if someone's having serial relationships. Especially someone who doesn't seem entirely sure of what they want?

This is basically a how-to for "why won't he dominate me" Normal people who are vanilla are not all conversion-ready closet dominants at all, and deserve to be left as they are.

Also, some quite "non normal" people who are comfortable with their alternative sexualities are capable of long-term partnerships.

Some of you are giving me great advice. I truly thank you for it. I see now that I need to work on my communication with my future Doms. I also see that I need to not only look for my perfect Dom but my perfect mate as well.

With that being said, some of you still just don't get it. So let me explain this one more time the best way I can. I have dealt with a lot of posers when I first became interested in BDSM. I came up with my "test" to weed them out so I wouldn't have yo waste my time or get my hopes up. I believed that if I tested the "limits" a real Dom would show he would not stand for it (yes if they told me they would not play games, I would stop because that shows he's legit) but if they backed down and gave in I'd know they were not right for me and bid them goodnight.
Just like any theory mine needs to be tweaked. I do not wish to waste my time, period. That's the only reason I came up with this. Bit I knew it was flawed and I thank the more experienced men and women for helping me. And for those who just thought I was playing games, I'm not.

Don't believe me. Don't care.

Again thank all of you for your help. I truly needed it and I even learned something I'd never thought about.

Curious_in_Cali said:

Please know that I do not mean this with any sort of snark... I am genuinely curious what kind of test you would find to be more appropriate for a pyl type when it comes to establishing trust in a new relationship. I think with all interactions that being courteous and respectful are a good default, but trusting as a default seems so naive to me. What filters would you recommend for a pyl type to weed out those that are on the spectrum of unsavory opportunists to not "a good fit"? What is a "better" way to test the waters in your opinion?

Click to expand...

Who the heck suggested trusting as a default?

It's tough to think of anything to add to Netzach's spectacular post [and yes, Netzach, I'm savoring]. But since you repeated the question even after reading her remarks, I'll respond.

Re the bold - you're hardly the first to ask that question on this board, and to be honest it always stuns me. How do you come to trust any human being? Same rules apply.

Re the filters - if you don't trust a guy on the most basic level, you've got no business stepping into a private space with him and letting the door close behind you. The OP says she's not afraid to speak up. Guess what? An untrustworthy guy won't give a rat's ass what she says. Once that door closes, it's way too late for trust tests, goofy or otherwise.

Out of curiosity, OP - are these Dominants you're talking about online relationships, or off?

CutieMouse said:

Out of curiosity, OP - are these Dominants you're talking about online relationships, or off?

Click to expand...

Both. But more off than on.

JMohegan said:

Who the heck suggested trusting as a default?

It's tough to think of anything to add to Netzach's spectacular post [and yes, Netzach, I'm savoring]. But since you repeated the question even after reading her remarks, I'll respond.

Re the bold - you're hardly the first to ask that question on this board, and to be honest it always stuns me. How do you come to trust any human being? Same rules apply.

Re the filters - if you don't trust a guy on the most basic level, you've got no business stepping into a private space with him and letting the door close behind you. The OP says she's not afraid to speak up. Guess what? An untrustworthy guy won't give a rat's ass what she says. Once that door closes, it's way too late for trust tests, goofy or otherwise.

Click to expand...

Yes and that's where being a black belt comes in handy and the fact that a blade is always hidden on me.
Do not be mistaken I know how to handle a bad situation. I've been raped more times then I'd like to admit and I'm confident when I say it won't be happening again.

Umm... it all depends.

My girlfriend, yes, beat and rape her ass.

Someone I just met, no way in hell. Cause I don't want to get beat and raped in prison.

You want to be handled, you first need to prove you are trustworthy.

And why do women need to "test", use your words. Like "what if I was defiant"?

YourCaptor said:

And why do women need to "test", use your words. Like "what if I was defiant"?

Click to expand...

I could kiss this man!

And this, THIS is why I date boys.

JMohegan said:

Who the heck suggested trusting as a default?

It's tough to think of anything to add to Netzach's spectacular post [and yes, Netzach, I'm savoring]. But since you repeated the question even after reading her remarks, I'll respond.

Re the bold - you're hardly the first to ask that question on this board, and to be honest it always stuns me. How do you come to trust any human being? Same rules apply.

Re the filters - if you don't trust a guy on the most basic level, you've got no business stepping into a private space with him and letting the door close behind you. The OP says she's not afraid to speak up. Guess what? An untrustworthy guy won't give a rat's ass what she says. Once that door closes, it's way too late for trust tests, goofy or otherwise.

Click to expand...

I did not intend to repeat the question as much as simply clarify what I was hoping to gain from an exchange with you originally. If Netzach's response was how you would have responded then great. She certainly gave a lot to consider that I am sure many will gain much from reading it. I am definitely learning more about the frustrations on either side of the Ds "dating" spectrum these days.

I do not understand your thoughts regarding filters. Basic trust should earn a certain set of privileges, sure. But, being alone with someone where a door could be closed should require more than just basic trust or you will be engaged in a game of opportunist roulette that is isn't really worth the risk.

And no, it was not my intention to broadly ask how any human being can trust any human being... I was simply trying to ask for your experience specifically and how it may have differed from the more generic human response because from what I read in so many of your posts your views and expectations in a Ds seem to be so fixed. If it doesn't differ from the more generic answer then I was wrong to ask, and am totally OK with that. Thank you anyways.

YourCaptor said:

Umm... it all depends.

My girlfriend, yes, beat and rape her ass.

Someone I just met, no way in hell. Cause I don't want to get beat and raped in prison.

You want to be handled, you first need to prove you are trustworthy.

And why do women need to "test", use your words. Like "what if I was defiant"?

Click to expand...

If he knows the answer, then word! That is ideal isn't it? Two people openly exchanging ideas and successfully communicating is awesome...and can be so very hawt, too.

Sometimes though, one or both of the people are figuring it out as they walk the path of trusting each other and no amount of words or talking about it will tell you the answer to some of the questions that may come up. But then again, as long as you stay safe and responsible, can't that part of the fun? The discovery? I don't think "test" has to be read as a negative or malicious word... the space between testing one's patience and testing a theory seems pretty broad to me.

That said, (and more to your question) sometimes people say one thing and do another. Sometimes people use words to lie, too. This is true of ALL people, not just the kinky ones. If you wait long enough people will always show you who they are, and it is our job to believe them... no matter how hawt their marketing appears to be.

Curious_in_Cali said:

If he knows the answer, then word! That is ideal isn't it? Two people openly exchanging ideas and successfully communicating is awesome...and can be so very hawt, too.

Sometimes though, one or both of the people are figuring it out as they walk the path of trusting each other and no amount of words or talking about it will tell you the answer to some of the questions that may come up. But then again, as long as you stay safe and responsible, can't that part of the fun? The discovery? I don't think "test" has to be read as a negative or malicious word... the space between testing one's patience and testing a theory seems pretty broad to me.

That said, (and more to your question) sometimes people say one thing and do another. Sometimes people use words to lie, too. This is true of ALL people, not just the kinky ones. If you wait long enough people will always show you who they are, and it is our job to believe them... no matter how hawt their marketing appears to be.

Click to expand...

I think the bolded part is the ultimate test.
If you do what YC (and my mother) says and use your words and weigh the words against behavior over time(no reason for me to repeat what Netzach said better than I could), I think you will get as close to finding if the person is trustworthy as possible.

My problem with OP's method is that she's already in a scene with this person. Either they haven't communicated nearly enough before hand or she is being untrustworthy herself by defying after having agreed to submit.
On top of that comes the fact that most other people already have pointed out - she's already in trouble when she finds out that the other person doesn't take defiance well.

And yes OP, having to use your black belt skills or a blade is being in trouble.

InnocentBell said:

and the fact that a blade is always hidden on me.

Click to expand...

This should be in the "stuff that's scary but isn't supposed to be" thread

Curious_in_Cali said:

I did not intend to repeat the question as much as simply clarify what I was hoping to gain from an exchange with you originally. If Netzach's response was how you would have responded then great. She certainly gave a lot to consider that I am sure many will gain much from reading it. I am definitely learning more about the frustrations on either side of the Ds "dating" spectrum these days.

I do not understand your thoughts regarding filters. Basic trust should earn a certain set of privileges, sure. But, being alone with someone where a door could be closed should require more than just basic trust or you will be engaged in a game of opportunist roulette that is isn't really worth the risk.

And no, it was not my intention to broadly ask how any human being can trust any human being... I was simply trying to ask for your experience specifically and how it may have differed from the more generic human response because from what I read in so many of your posts your views and expectations in a Ds seem to be so fixed. If it doesn't differ from the more generic answer then I was wrong to ask, and am totally OK with that. Thank you anyways.

Click to expand...

Netzach expanded on what I had already written in post #6. (Re-quoted, below.) The quote sums up my advice to anyone entering a relationship, no matter their personal wiring.

In my experience specifically, I prefer fishing in the allegedly vanilla pond - where women don't seek the "perfect Dom," but rather a guy who feels like a really good fit. So much of the modern Bee Dee Ess Emm culture portrays "real Doms" as superhero cartoon character types, with the regrettable result that many s-types go looking for fantasy figures.

I'm just a guy with control issues, who gets off on power and pain. That's all. What I love about Netzach's post [and yes, I'm still savoring] is that she elaborated on the point that male Ds are actually humans - with hopes, fears, wishes, and worries, just like everyone else.

JMohegan said:

You have a curious view of what constitutes strength, but that aside, I applaud your commitment to selectivity.

Get to know the guy. Spend time assessing compatibility in terms of ethics, character, sense of humor, etc., as well as power dynamics.

Click to expand...

JMohegan said:

the brat-averse community'

Click to expand...

lol

Doms should pick their battles and always be looking at the big picture. If you start giving orders right away, you run the risk of getting sucked into someone else's game like this.

rosco rathbone said:

lol

Doms should pick their battles and always be looking at the big picture. If you start giving orders right away, you run the risk of getting sucked into someone else's game like this.

Click to expand...

Word to the wise, right here.

Curious_in_Cali said:

I think far too often we can get caught up in what is more universally accepted as "attractive" and focus our marketing there instead of trusting that to the right eye you sparkle on the shelf regardless.

Click to expand...

Please excuse the wording but...
That is so fucking beautiful!
Especially the last part...

I just have to toss some of those at you.

PS: And Netzach gets a handful of them, too. For totally different reasons I totally refuse to explain…

Sounds kinda like you're assuming a passive agressive role....maybe you like being in charge more than you think....I love the idea of switching back and forth between being a Mistress and being subserviant to a strong controlling man....I find both opportunities, equally enjoyable.

JMohegan said:

Word to the wise, right here.

Click to expand...

Sup j-Mo.

Every dom runs into this kind of thing from time to time. You can't let it rattle you. Factor it into your assessment, make a note of mental payback and move on.

I was just thinking about domination the other day. In the online bdsm community where we sort of hash out the mores of bdsm society in an organic grassroots way, there's a meme that "a Dom is someone who claims that he can dominate everyone he comes across" and this gets mixed up with silly talk of alpha males and such.

I style myself a dom, but I don't pretend that I'm at the top of society's manipulation and power hierarchy. I'm somewhere down in the middle. I can bend some to my will, and others can bend me to theirs.

What makes me a dom is that, psychosexually I'm looking DOWN the primate hierarchy chain, not up. I get my jollies pushing around those beneath me. That's it.