Newbie has some questions / Am I a sub?

[PoetM]

Thank you for your most kind and elaborate reply.

It's most certainly mostly a verbal, mental thing for me, I think I enjoy the game and pushing and pulling. One of the best flings I ever had was a perfectly plain looking, small friend, who wrote the boldest, smartest letters. I really enjoyed that.

I am smarter now, because I've made two amazing new friends, who helped so much already, I'm much more relaxed and don't care about that sub label any longer.
As a great artist and Jahwe said:
"I am who I am."

As we're speaking of labels: I doubt there's really something like sapiosexual, I think that's more of another label and the ongoing trend in neoliberalism to create non stop new identities and labels to give people special cultural chic and the feeling of specialness and belonging at the same time. Of course, intellectuals prefer intellectuals, because they share experiences and a common language, it's the same with other groups.

Is there something as a warrior-warrior-sub? One who even is a warrior inside the bedroom?

All the best and kind regards

Sapiosexual (to me) is simply mental aspects of D/s and kink. There are people who really don't want to chat much or fantasize or think through sessions...they are more on the pure physical side of things related to bondage.

Most certainly there are "warrior" subs though there is more than one reference to this type of sub. In general this type of person is in control in their day to day lives but want to submit (or have someone else) control behind closed doors and/or in a PE (Power Exchange) way. Years ago I at first thought it was around 50/50 "Warrior" sub vs sub sub. I've since come to believe based on years to communications that it's closer to 85/15 with the majority falling into the "Warrior" sub category. Again some would use a different term vs "warrior"...I think of them as "Dom" subs which I realize can be confusing.

Given a "Warrior" sub she would submitting inside the bedroom mind you. She would have chosen to give her sub respect to a Dom and would be submitting to him. Not to be confused with role play. Important to realize she is "Choosing" to submit which is it's own form of strength.

Also important to note here it's important to not try and "top" from the bottom. If she is wanting to be in control in submission then in fact she isn't a sub. You can't be a puppeteer and still enjoy the show as I like to say. If you are wanting to control the Dom then you aren't submitting..pretty simple.

 

[MasterDarcy]

You sound like a Sapiosexual as well as a demisexual. You are attracted by intelligence and you need there to be mental stimulation as a mental bond.

It sounds like you like kinky sex without any of the bells and whistles.

It's fair to say that you aren't interested in a TPE relationship. It sounds like it's more roleplay and strictly confined to the bedroom.

You say that sapiosexuality isn't a thing and that intelligent people are attracted to intelligent people. It's not true. I've known mega smart women who have been into simpletons.... good looking simpletons.

Why do you think there are so many smart, rich older men who date or marry Playboy models? To play Chess and discuss geopolitics?

Also, there's nothing embarrassing about being like Hermione. Hermione is smoking hot.

 

[flameinsidesoul]

Yes, you belong in the kink space — 100%.
Yes, you might be a sub, but not the kind often caricatured in mainstream fantasy.

You sound like a high-powered, deeply intelligent, emotionally grounded woman who wants her power honored everywhere, including when she chooses to lay it down temporarily in a space of trust. That’s not weakness. That’s intentional surrender. That’s sacred.

You’re not someone who wants to be disrespected. You want to be respected so much that someone understands exactlyhow to guide your body and mind into soft, ecstatic openness. With your permission. On your terms. That’s not contradiction. That’s clarity. Being submissive in the bedroom and dominant in life? That’s more common than you’d think. In fact, some of the strongest, most commanding people I know crave that loss of control because their mind is always on. The bedroom becomes a sanctuary of sensation. A place where your thoughts get to quiet, and your body gets to speak.

Also: the fact that you can’t get turned on without intellectual connection? That doesn’t make things complicated, it just means your arousal runs deep. Deep enough to require depth in return. It filters out the superficial, and that’s a gift.

 

[Boat1]

^^^THIS^^^

 

[Liberia]

You sound like a Sapiosexual as well as a demisexual. You are attracted by intelligence and you need there to be mental stimulation as a mental bond.

It sounds like you like kinky sex without any of the bells and whistles.

It's fair to say that you aren't interested in a TPE relationship. It sounds like it's more roleplay and strictly confined to the bedroom.

You say that sapiosexuality isn't a thing and that intelligent people are attracted to intelligent people. It's not true. I've known mega smart women who have been into simpletons.... good looking simpletons.

Why do you think there are so many smart, rich older men who date or marry Playboy models? To play Chess and discuss geopolitics?

Also, there's nothing embarrassing about being like Hermione. Hermione is smoking hot.

Thank you so much for your kind reply, I just saw it now. I will research demisexuality, I never identified with that and look into everything you wrote. Attraction works well for me as soon as I find somebody sympathetic and interesting, then I only need an hour or two of talking. Would that still count?

Lastly, I was a bit excited, because someone was really grounded in punk music and talked about it with such passion and even showed me some records I did not know before.

I am not an expert in demisexuality, but I am able to develop pretty rapid attraction if I have interest and sympathy for a person. I once had 6 amazing days with someone, who I had just seen two times before that. We bonded over music and great poetry and that was enough.

Sex on the opposite, without any kind of connection, just seems soulless and not deeply satisfying to me, like McDonalds instead of greek lemon pototoes. I am not talking about romantic love - I might even be a bit of a sceptic of the concept of romantic love, which is fairly new and coincides with enlightment period and the new ideologies of the bourgeoisie against aristrocratic ideals - I am just talking about a connection. Intelligence and a good heart and wit and passion and sarcasm are so attractive to me. Is that not the norm? Most of my friends are also really attracted to personality, I thought that was normal.

Would you call that a wee bit demisexual?



Kind regards and thanks

L.

^^^THIS^^^

Yes, you belong in the kink space — 100%.
Yes, you might be a sub, but not the kind often caricatured in mainstream fantasy.

You sound like a high-powered, deeply intelligent, emotionally grounded woman who wants her power honored everywhere, including when she chooses to lay it down temporarily in a space of trust. That’s not weakness. That’s intentional surrender. That’s sacred.

You’re not someone who wants to be disrespected. You want to be respected so much that someone understands exactlyhow to guide your body and mind into soft, ecstatic openness. With your permission. On your terms. That’s not contradiction. That’s clarity. Being submissive in the bedroom and dominant in life? That’s more common than you’d think. In fact, some of the strongest, most commanding people I know crave that loss of control because their mind is always on. The bedroom becomes a sanctuary of sensation. A place where your thoughts get to quiet, and your body gets to speak.

Also: the fact that you can’t get turned on without intellectual connection? That doesn’t make things complicated, it just means your arousal runs deep. Deep enough to require depth in return. It filters out the superficial, and that’s a gift.

Flameinthesoul!
Thank you so much for your reply.
The notifications did not work well. My gratitude for your time you took to write such a beautiful answer.


Everything that you wrote made so much sense to me and felt not in the least bit humiliating or provocing.

"who wants her power honored everywhere, including when she chooses to lay it down temporarily in a space of trust" this is exactly right, it should be like a really good hard bop jazz recording.

Thank you, this really helped.

Kind regards and a lovely day

L.

 

[filthytrancendence]

As we're speaking of labels: I doubt there's really something like sapiosexual, I think that's more of another label and the ongoing trend in neoliberalism to create non stop new identities and labels to give people special cultural chic and the feeling of specialness and belonging at the same time. Of course, intellectuals prefer intellectuals, because they share experiences and a common language, it's the same with other groups.

I think the weaknesses of labels has been pretty thoroughly discussed here, but this feels like a pretty significant over-correction to me.

Labels are imperfect by their nature. But I find that if there's a substantial group of people that really identify with a label, that's a pretty good indicator that there's something to that label worth understanding, even if it seems silly to you.

Not a single one of them are some kind of a priori truth of the universe. All of them are 'fake' in the same way that all social constructs are fake. That doesn't mean they don't get at something that is a meaningful distinction from whatever the parent label is. And it's almost never helpful to try and flatten somebody's labeling of themselves from the outside.

And as much as I'd love to blame neoliberalism for things... I don't think that particular problem is inherent to any ideology. There's certainly a worrying crossover between consumerism and hyper-specific labeling of things, but that's not really much of a concern in kink spaces. And leftists surely love our hyper-specific labels just as much as conglomerates do, just for completely different reasons.

 

[Liberia]

I think the weaknesses of labels has been pretty thoroughly discussed here, but this feels like a pretty significant over-correction to me.

Labels are imperfect by their nature. But I find that if there's a substantial group of people that really identify with a label, that's a pretty good indicator that there's something to that label worth understanding, even if it seems silly to you.

Not a single one of them are some kind of a priori truth of the universe. All of them are 'fake' in the same way that all social constructs are fake. That doesn't mean they don't get at something that is a meaningful distinction from whatever the parent label is. And it's almost never helpful to try and flatten somebody's labeling of themselves from the outside.

And as much as I'd love to blame neoliberalism for things... I don't think that particular problem is inherent to any ideology. There's certainly a worrying crossover between consumerism and hyper-specific labeling of things, but that's not really much of a concern in kink spaces. And leftists surely love our hyper-specific labels just as much as conglomerates do, just for completely different reasons.

As much as I agree that labels are also useful and I use them sociologically all the time, working class, feminist... I am still a bit sceptical concerning the sapiosexual label. I used to identify as that as a teen and found the critique quite compelling.

Although you are right with labels on the left, the contempary left is just an image of neoliberalism. Do you know Mark Fisher by any chance and have an opinion?

Kind regards and lovely evening
L.

 

[filthytrancendence]

As much as I agree that labels are also useful and I use them sociologically all the time, working class, feminist... I am still a bit sceptical concerning the sapiosexual label. I used to identify as that as a teen and found the critique quite compelling.

And I think that's a perfectly valid view for yourself. My intention in questioning it is to caution against the broad dismissal of any label. That doesn't go anywhere good, in my experience. The fact that you once identified with it, then found a good reason to question that identification, isn't really a reason to believe that other people who identify with it will or should have a similar experience. My only point is that there's usually something there worth understanding, and the understanding is always more valuable than dismissing.

Although you are right with labels on the left, the contempary left is just an image of neoliberalism. Do you know Mark Fisher by any chance and have an opinion?

I've not read his work directly, but I'm definitely familiar with the idea of Capitalist Realism. I should read his stuff. Seems like we're of the same mind on a lot of things, but there's always more to read...

I'm a libertarian communist, or anarcho-communist. See? The hyper-specific thing I am has to fight against 3 different near-universal confusions about political labels in order to even arrive at a name, which itself has almost no hope of being understood by anyone who doesn't already agree with me.

Labels

 

[Liberia]

And I think that's a perfectly valid view for yourself. My intention in questioning it is to caution against the broad dismissal of any label. That doesn't go anywhere good, in my experience. The fact that you once identified with it, then found a good reason to question that identification, isn't really a reason to believe that other people who identify with it will or should have a similar experience. My only point is that there's usually something there worth understanding, and the understanding is always more valuable than dismissing.


I've not read his work directly, but I'm definitely familiar with the idea of Capitalist Realism. I should read his stuff. Seems like we're of the same mind on a lot of things, but there's always more to read...

I'm a libertarian communist, or anarcho-communist. See? The hyper-specific thing I am has to fight against 3 different near-universal confusions about political labels in order to even arrive at a name, which itself has almost no hope of being understood by anyone who doesn't already agree with me.

Labels

I understood your self id just fine, without being one.
Bakunist flavor or more Spanish Republican style? Influenced by italian operaism?

In another life I may have been admin of a dumpster fire on FB, I can not say here which though, because then I'd be catched by anyone who was in it.

Concerning Mark Fisher: I have PDFs and epubs.

Kind regards

 

[MasterDarcy]

Thank you so much for your kind reply, I just saw it now. I will research demisexuality, I never identified with that and look into everything you wrote. Attraction works well for me as soon as I find somebody sympathetic and interesting, then I only need an hour or two of talking. Would that still count?

Lastly, I was a bit excited, because someone was really grounded in punk music and talked about it with such passion and even showed me some records I did not know before.

I am not an expert in demisexuality, but I am able to develop pretty rapid attraction if I have interest and sympathy for a person. I once had 6 amazing days with someone, who I had just seen two times before that. We bonded over music and great poetry and that was enough.

Sex on the opposite, without any kind of connection, just seems soulless and not deeply satisfying to me, like McDonalds instead of greek lemon pototoes. I am not talking about romantic love - I might even be a bit of a sceptic of the concept of romantic love, which is fairly new and coincides with enlightment period and the new ideologies of the bourgeoisie against aristrocratic ideals - I am just talking about a connection. Intelligence and a good heart and wit and passion and sarcasm are so attractive to me. Is that not the norm? Most of my friends are also really attracted to personality, I thought that was normal.

Would you call that a wee bit demisexual?

You're very welcome. Happy I could help.

Oh. It definitely still counts. A connection can form instantly with the right person.

Cool. A bond can be established by any shared interest. Even if said interest appears insignificant.

It's funny. I've bonded with a person whom I've known for a minute more than I've bonded with someone I've known for over a year.

Oh really? And you need a bond and a connection before sex can be in the mix? Yeah. Definitely demisexual.

Yeah. There's really a multitude of things that one can find attractive and be used to initiate a bond.

Wit and humour are definitely a type of intelligence. I'm the same way. There's nothing more off-putting than using a clever turn of phrase then hearing the sounds of crickets in the background.

Nah. It's not the norm. Why do you think all of those Playboy models are so sought after? Not for their rapier wit*.

Oh. More than a wee bit. I'd add sapiosexual, too.

Intelligence is hot! So, you definitely aren't alone in needing a bond as well as a brain.

*Being a Playboy model and having wit aren't mutuality exclusive.

 

[Liberia]

You're very welcome. Happy I could help.

Oh. It definitely still counts. A connection can form instantly with the right person.

Cool. A bond can be established by any shared interest. Even if said interest appears insignificant.

It's funny. I've bonded with a person whom I've known for a minute more than I've bonded with someone I've known for over a year.

Oh really? And you need a bond and a connection before sex can be in the mix? Yeah. Definitely demisexual.

Yeah. There's really a multitude of things that one can find attractive and be used to initiate a bond.

Wit and humour are definitely a type of intelligence. I'm the same way. There's nothing more off-putting than using a clever turn of phrase then hearing the sounds of crickets in the background.

Nah. It's not the norm. Why do you think all of those Playboy models are so sought after? Not for their rapier wit*.

Oh. More than a wee bit. I'd add sapiosexual, too.

Intelligence is hot! So, you definitely aren't alone in needing a bond as well as a brain.

*Being a Playboy model and having wit aren't mutuality exclusive.

I meant the norm for intellectuals. All my friends say that they find smart and funny women attractive and while the women they like are certainly pretty, they prefer someone who is a bit on the chunky side but super sassy and doing a PhD over an influencer.
So, not the mainstream norm, but pretty standard for everyone I know.


BTW and completely off topic:
Have you named yourself after Jane Austen? I think her wit and great irony are often underestimated. I even thought to myself a while ago that I find this humor in the works of G.B. Shaw and Terry Pratchett.

 

[MasterDarcy]

I meant the norm for intellectuals. All my friends say that they find smart and funny women attractive and while the women they like are certainly pretty, they prefer someone who is a bit on the chunky side but super sassy and doing a PhD over an influencer.
So, not the mainstream norm, but pretty standard for everyone I know.


BTW and completely off topic:
Have you named yourself after Jane Austen? I think her wit and great irony are often underestimated. I even thought to myself a while ago that I find this humor in the works of G.B. Shaw and Terry Pratchett.

Ah. You'd think that, but I've known several super intellectuals who go after, for lack of a better phrase, Barbieesque archetypes*

It actually goes the other way, too. Some not-so-intellectual people are attracted to intellect. In some cases it's lauding intelligence and actively feeling inadequate, in a submissive way.

The "laws of attraction" don't work with actual attraction.

Yes. I'm a Jane Austen fan plus I'm more than a wee bit like Mr Darcy (No idea if that's a boast or not...).

So yes, my name is a play on words.

*Not that there's anything wrong with Barbie. She's lovely.

 

[Britva415]

There's nothing wrong with the "sapiosexual" label, as long as it isn't mistaken for a sexual orientation.

It's not. It's just having a type.

 

[Liberia]

Ah. You'd think that, but I've known several super intellectuals who go after, for lack of a better phrase, Barbieesque archetypes*

It actually goes the other way, too. Some not-so-intellectual people are attracted to intellect. In some cases it's lauding intelligence and actively feeling inadequate, in a submissive way.

The "laws of attraction" don't work with actual attraction.

Yes. I'm a Jane Austen fan plus I'm more than a wee bit like Mr Darcy (No idea if that's a boast or not...).

So yes, my name is a play on words.

*Not that there's anything wrong with Barbie. She's lovely.

Big Austen fan here myself, although I love the Bennet sisters, I am also very fond of Sense and Sensibility and the bittersweet missed opportunies of Persuasion, Fanny is a little bit too innocent, too "good" for me, but I loved the commentary on slavery and the sarcasm. The aunt reminds me of Gilderoy Lockhart. I think, Austens strong side is definately the character descriptions, the sarcasm, the psychologic finesse.

I had to look up your profile now of course and must ask: Why would you characterise Darcy as misanthropic? Shy, proud, hurt, a bit stuck up and posh, sure. But misanthropic?

In my circles women usually wear short hair, do not dress up in the tradional sense, but wear a beautiful androgynic look, a good girlfriend of mine looks like a hot young Harry Potter. I am already a bit different, because I am very fond of the reform modernist dress of the 1920-1940s, working women who could ride a bike and do everything, but it is still a bit chic and like red lips. For me everything that still allows me to do manual labour and ride a bike is fine, but with that I am the stereotypical femme in my circles.
How different standards are...

For me it is conpletely normal that my male friends tell me about aforementioned PhD student and never really about her looks, but her sassyness or about an article she wrote. I think, I am very used to living in a bubble and may have forgotten how the rest of the dating world can be.

 

[Samantha47]

Hello everybody. I wanted to ask those of you with lots of experience if you could give me some advice and help me with my questions. English is not my first language, so please excuse any spelling mistakes and grammar butchering.

I'm a woman in my twenties, doing a PhD, lurked for years on and off and wanted to ask some questions. Yesterday I read all 20 pages of the pussy spanking thread and then decided to be brave and make an account.

I want to find out what I am, because I am not sure if I am a sub. In my day to day life I am told that people, especially men, are a little bit afraid of me, I am a bookworm, pretty bossy and a little like everyones elder sister and genuinely enjoy helping others. Growing up I identified with Hermione a lot. As embarrassing as that my seem, I sometimes like to read Harry Potter fanfic and this is the place where I stumbled about the term "good girl" and other things. That did something to me, to put it mildly.

I am not sure if I am a sub, because I don't want to be humiliated, I wouldn't want to be a slave, called degrading names or feel disrespected. At the same time, I really enjoy putting my hands over my head, keep them there like a good girl and have my delicate parts spanked while keeping my legs open. Or being fingered and kneaded with two hands, one at the front and one at the backside. Or anal play, taking a pounding like a... you know.
I enjoy giving oral pleasure, not because of submission, but because it gives pleasure. I prefer men, but whenever I was with a women I just gave her the treatment I would like to receive, so fairly dominant and topping, I guess, and they loved it. I have few real experiences outside of the vanilla world, only with two partners I could enjoy the spanking and anal part and one, who was fairly older than me, made me spread my legs and let me have 6 orgasms until everything was raw.

One of those spanking guys treated me not as their equal and without respect outside of the bedroom and was ditched because of that. Later he apologized and said, that he found me so smart and determined that he felt insecure in his masculinity and that's why he treated me with this aggressive attitude. I accepted the apology but did not wanted to stay in contact. I need safe men around me. Most of my friends are male, I love feeling safe with them, I also have good friendships with my vanilla exes. So, I am afraid of the implications of my likings, you could guess. My exes are all super nice, progressive men who consider themselves feminists and enjoy an independent partner.

So, there's some fear of being not treated with respect by a man. Sometimes my female friends tell me that their male friends are on much better behavior around me, because they are a little bit afraid of me. I do not want to lose my "authority", I guess. But at the same time I love to be bossed around in the bedroom and love it if my head stops thinking for once, it's such an amazing feeling.
I know, that I like it since I was very young, because I know that what words or fantasies make me excited. I know what I fantasize about when masturbating. Even some CNC.

So what I am asking myself more and more:
Am I a sub? Am I vanilla, who is a bit kinky perhaps? If there's a chance that I can get a little pussy spanking and some other activities I'm constantly horny and want to have sex a lot. This also works with softer vaginal or anal sex where I'm verbally 'dominated' and have maybe my hands above my head. But with just kissing and the typical vanilla stuff I have a hard time getting wet at all. With the other stuff, I'm like the sea.

Also, I find myself drawn only to men with whom I can talk. I can't even feel a little attraction if somebody is not into something like music, theater, books, progressive politics or something like that. For me to feel attraction, I need intellectual attraction, which makes it even more complicated.
But I feel like I can't ask those men I know, because I am afraid of shocking them completely or having the next one treating me without respect.

Could you give me some advice what to do next? Do I even belong to the kink space? Am I a sub? Am I a bottom?

Thank you all and kind regards

Truthfully you sound perfect to me

 

[asxymann68]

@Liberia Thank you for being so open with your feelings, I know that is not easy. My take on your preferences is that you need to find an open minded partner who you trust implicitly, then lead them into what you would like to happen. I personally do not think you are very outside vanilla at all. I have been lucky to talk with a number of women here, and in real life and most are very open minded about being tied up, or dressing up, or having their pussy's spanked. The right partner will be happy and respectful and desiring to please you in every way.

 

[Samantha47]

@Liberia Thank you for being so open with your feelings, I know that is not easy. My take on your preferences is that you need to find an open minded partner who you trust implicitly, then lead them into what you would like to happen. I personally do not think you are very outside vanilla at all. I have been lucky to talk with a number of women here, and in real life and most are very open minded about being tied up, or dressing up, or having their pussy's spanked. The right partner will be happy and respectful and desiring to please you in every way.

Sounds wonderful

 

[Liberia]

@Liberia Thank you for being so open with your feelings, I know that is not easy. My take on your preferences is that you need to find an open minded partner who you trust implicitly, then lead them into what you would like to happen. I personally do not think you are very outside vanilla at all. I have been lucky to talk with a number of women here, and in real life and most are very open minded about being tied up, or dressing up, or having their pussy's spanked. The right partner will be happy and respectful and desiring to please you in every way.

Truth shall make ya free.


Thank you for your kind answer.
I like vanilla, real bourbon vanilla, use it in my porridge every day, so being vanilla does not scare me.

I find the pure act of tying up or spanking is not enough for me, it is certainly nicer than nothing, but I still know the difference between mechanical acts and a truly groundbreaking spiritual experience.

Meeting other people here has certainly helped me to relax a little, I have met three wonderful people, who just took the time to befriend me and answer every little question I might have. Talk to them regulary and love it.

Although it was not easy, I am grateful I did make an account here and would do it again.

Kind regards

L.

 

[MasterDarcy]

Big Austen fan here myself, although I love the Bennet sisters, I am also very fond of Sense and Sensibility and the bittersweet missed opportunies of Persuasion, Fanny is a little bit too innocent, too "good" for me, but I loved the commentary on slavery and the sarcasm. The aunt reminds me of Gilderoy Lockhart. I think, Austens strong side is definately the character descriptions, the sarcasm, the psychologic finesse.

I had to look up your profile now of course and must ask: Why would you characterise Darcy as misanthropic? Shy, proud, hurt, a bit stuck up and posh, sure. But misanthropic?

In my circles women usually wear short hair, do not dress up in the tradional sense, but wear a beautiful androgynic look, a good girlfriend of mine looks like a hot young Harry Potter. I am already a bit different, because I am very fond of the reform modernist dress of the 1920-1940s, working women who could ride a bike and do everything, but it is still a bit chic and like red lips. For me everything that still allows me to do manual labour and ride a bike is fine, but with that I am the stereotypical femme in my circles.
How different standards are...

For me it is conpletely normal that my male friends tell me about aforementioned PhD student and never really about her looks, but her sassyness or about an article she wrote. I think, I am very used to living in a bubble and may have forgotten how the rest of the dating world can be.

The main thing about the writing of Austen is that it's multilayered, multifaceted and transcends generations. The best art speaks to all generations that proceeds it. Just talking about literature, this is why Poe, Shakespeare, Bronte(s), Austen, Dickinson, etc, are timeless and never got out of print or popularity.

I know. I know. You aren't the first person who has pulled me up on the whole "You think Darcy is isanthropic" thing.

Maybe he isn't a misanthrope. Maybe I'm completely wrong. I've been wrong before. Maybe he's just aloof and shy and introverted, etc.

However, I was shy when I was young. For me it was a precursor to being misanthropic. I realise that I'm projecting, but art is often open to interpretation.

Cool. That's pretty much the definition of feminism. People should be allowed, and be respected for showing and displaying their own individuality. There's nothing more boring than cookie-cutter styles and clones.

You are the stereotypical femme in your circles? Oh really?

Yeah. Well. With all due respect to the wider dating world, your bubble sounds like a healthy environment to be in. I do my bit by snubbing social media, ect, so I'm cool with having my head in the clouds with regards to modern pop culture.

 

[Liberia]

The main thing about the writing of Austen is that it's multilayered, multifaceted and transcends generations. The best art speaks to all generations that proceeds it. Just talking about literature, this is why Poe, Shakespeare, Bronte(s), Austen, Dickinson, etc, are timeless and never got out of print or popularity.

This is not so far from my marxist take. Marx asked himself as a young man why the old greeks, their tragedies are still fascinating to us, although they had a completely different set of values, mode of production etc and they still touch us.

You are a bit of a gruftie right? Bronte(s) are a little bit dark romantic, I've always been to much of a classical enlightment gal myself for that, although it is definately great literature. Instead of that I was in love with beatnik poetry as a teen, also dark romantic, but I do not think I still could enjoy it the same today, that is something for puberty, not for adults.
Poe is on my list, never came to that. Dickens is great, but I love the ethics of his stories sometimes even a bit more than the literary style. You can correct me of course, but for me it is the humanity of his characters, the pain that every human feels in his heart when little Oliver asks if he may have more gruel that is so transcending and touching about it. For me it is more that than the actual language. Shakespeare? Just straight agree, love Shakespeare. Lately I gotten more into Ovid and Rumi, because a new friend of mine is really into those two.

Dostoyevsky is for me that better author than Tolstoy, but I still think Tolstoy is a fantastic author with compelling characters and interesting developments, but I am stll so much more in love with the intense psychology of Dostoyevskis characters, I never found such a compelling, heart-breaking story of addiction as the alcoholic in crime and punishment. I live in a very wealthy city and had, as Austen would put it, good fortune in life, but we have a major addiction and homelessness crisis and it is very tough for me to see the suffering every day and so I did a lot of research into addiction. Tolstoy with his anarchistic-peasant-pacifism is of course much more sympathetic than the nationalist, conservative Dostoyevski.

Maybe he isn't a misanthrope. Maybe I'm completely wrong. I've been wrong before. Maybe he's just aloof and shy and introverted, etc.

However, I was shy when I was young. For me it was a precursor to being misanthropic. I realise that I'm projecting, but art is often open to interpretation.

But Darcy was not young. He was a man well in the middle of his life, a guardian for his sister, he had loving relationships with his sister and his best buddy and a good relationship with his servants, if one wants to call that relation, but you get my drift. He also cared deeply for Liza and developed a very positive relationship with her uncle in trade. He did not want to be laughed at and was hurt after what could have happened to his sister.
What is your definition of misanthropy?

You are the stereotypical femme in your circles?

This was an example to illustrate how far off my bubble probably is. I fix furniture, lift everything, repair stuff, have never ever worn anything pink or glitter and do not even believe in the concepts of feminity and masculinity as supra-historical, universally valid categories, these are always concrete, depend on economy, climate, culture and can change over time, you can see this is in early neolithic societies and around the world, where very different kind of gender relations developed and changed over time. What is femine or masculine to one society is not so to the next.
Maybe my english is not good enough, I wanted to make the clear and funny point that I am probably living in such a bubble sometimes, that I am so far off with my expectations of normal behavior that I am maybe, juuuust maybe not the right person to have any views about normalcy.

Kind regards

 

[asxymann68]

We are fortunate to live in a free world, so who cares about normality? Someone who may want to fit some kind of ideal that doesn't exist. As Shakey said "To thine own self be true" and fuck the rest. Live you life and love your life. Fly your freak flag high.

 

[Liberia]

We are fortunate to live in a free world, so who cares about normality? Someone who may want to fit some kind of ideal that doesn't exist. As Shakey said "To thine own self be true" and fuck the rest. Live you life and love your life. Fly your freak flag high.

Oh, I really do not care, I was just explaining my different view on the world.

Although my freak flag is not that long.

 

[MasterDarcy]

This is not so far from my marxist take. Marx asked himself as a young man why the old greeks, their tragedies are still fascinating to us, although they had a completely different set of values, mode of production etc and they still touch us.

You are a bit of a gruftie right? Bronte(s) are a little bit dark romantic, I've always been to much of a classical enlightment gal myself for that, although it is definately great literature. Instead of that I was in love with beatnik poetry as a teen, also dark romantic, but I do not think I still could enjoy it the same today, that is something for puberty, not for adults.
Poe is on my list, never came to that. Dickens is great, but I love the ethics of his stories sometimes even a bit more than the literary style. You can correct me of course, but for me it is the humanity of his characters, the pain that every human feels in his heart when little Oliver asks if he may have more gruel that is so transcending and touching about it. For me it is more that than the actual language. Shakespeare? Just straight agree, love Shakespeare. Lately I gotten more into Ovid and Rumi, because a new friend of mine is really into those two.

Dostoyevsky is for me that better author than Tolstoy, but I still think Tolstoy is a fantastic author with compelling characters and interesting developments, but I am stll so much more in love with the intense psychology of Dostoyevskis characters, I never found such a compelling, heart-breaking story of addiction as the alcoholic in crime and punishment. I live in a very wealthy city and had, as Austen would put it, good fortune in life, but we have a major addiction and homelessness crisis and it is very tough for me to see the suffering every day and so I did a lot of research into addiction. Tolstoy with his anarchistic-peasant-pacifism is of course much more sympathetic than the nationalist, conservative Dostoyevski.

But Darcy was not young. He was a man well in the middle of his life, a guardian for his sister, he had loving relationships with his sister and his best buddy and a good relationship with his servants, if one wants to call that relation, but you get my drift. He also cared deeply for Liza and developed a very positive relationship with her uncle in trade. He did not want to be laughed at and was hurt after what could have happened to his sister.
What is your definition of misanthropy?


This was an example to illustrate how far off my bubble probably is. I fix furniture, lift everything, repair stuff, have never ever worn anything pink or glitter and do not even believe in the concepts of feminity and masculinity as supra-historical, universally valid categories, these are always concrete, depend on economy, climate, culture and can change over time, you can see this is in early neolithic societies and around the world, where very different kind of gender relations developed and changed over time. What is femine or masculine to one society is not so to the next.
Maybe my english is not good enough, I wanted to make the clear and funny point that I am probably living in such a bubble sometimes, that I am so far off with my expectations of normal behavior that I am maybe, juuuust maybe not the right person to have any views about normalcy.

Kind regards

Yeah. It's not a bad point. As Einstein said "If you want to know the future, look at the past," and it's especially relevant these days, with so many megalomaniacal words leaders all wanting to rule the world.

I'm a bit of a gruftie? I would rather label myself as ineffable.

In terms of romance, yes. I prefer dark, gothic, morose and morbid romance over romance stories that have the general flavour of Unicorns and Pixies. I do disagree, though, the dark romance is more adult than the lighter fair of archetypal romantic stories.

Yes. Charles Dickens wrote gritty and realistic prose and stories and he wrote about the working class, as opposed to authors like Austen who generally wrote about a higher class of individual.

Ovid and Rumi? Never heard of them. But I'll add them to my list. I'm Scottish, so I would be remiss if I didn't mention Robert Burns.

I haven't read any Dostoyevski or Tolstoy, I must admit.

Yep. I didn't say that Darcy was young. He's definitely on the Autistic spectrum in term of his general characteristics and traits.

My definition of misanthropy? A dislike of the human race. Just not to the point of being a psychopath.

Ah. I gotcha. As far as "normal" goes, that word is a human construct in order to control people and make them conform.

And your English is excellent.

 

[Liberia]

Yeah. It's not a bad point. As Einstein said "If you want to know the future, look at the past," and it's especially relevant these days, with so many megalomaniacal words leaders all wanting to rule the world.

I'm a bit of a gruftie? I would rather label myself as ineffable.

In terms of romance, yes. I prefer dark, gothic, morose and morbid romance over romance stories that have the general flavour of Unicorns and Pixies. I do disagree, though, the dark romance is more adult than the lighter fair of archetypal romantic stories.

Yes. Charles Dickens wrote gritty and realistic prose and stories and he wrote about the working class, as opposed to authors like Austen who generally wrote about a higher class of individual.

Ovid and Rumi? Never heard of them. But I'll add them to my list. I'm Scottish, so I would be remiss if I didn't mention Robert Burns.

I haven't read any Dostoyevski or Tolstoy, I must admit.

Yep. I didn't say that Darcy was young. He's definitely on the Autistic spectrum in term of his general characteristics and traits.

My definition of misanthropy? A dislike of the human race. Just not to the point of being a psychopath.

Ah. I gotcha. As far as "normal" goes, that word is a human construct in order to control people and make them conform.

And your English is excellent.

I'm a bit of a gruftie? I would rather label myself as ineffable.

In terms of romance, yes. I prefer dark, gothic, morose and morbid romance over romance stories that have the general flavour of Unicorns and Pixies. I do disagree, though, the dark romance is more adult than the lighter fair of archetypal romantic stories.

Firstly, you are a great pen pal, I really enjoy this.


But secondly I need to clear something up. Dark romance vs. romance: I think we have a huge misunderstanding. I do not prefer romance or light romance and I think we may not even agree on the terms on definitions. When I am using romance and romantic I am not meaning anything light-hearted or concerning love, I would, for an example, never call Austen's books romantic. Romantic means a specific literary, political, youth movement as a result of enlightment and industrialization. People wanted to get back to nature, the natural, saw the feeling, emotion, sentiment, the primal and natural urges as the only thing valid, wanted to break the chains of reason, rationality and self-restraint, which they saw as alienating and being against their ideal of human nature. Marie Antoinette with her fake natural garden, where the maids had to clean the sheep everytime her majesty wanted to milk them is a great example.

As you may have grasped by now: I am not a huge fan intellectually on the hand, although I know that it comes forth and back in waves and I am also a total contradiction, because Beatnik literature with it's passionate rebellion is of course one form of romantic, but also the whole hippie movement is one big romantic movement. Back to nature, against the rigid rules of society, listen to your emotions, dance barefoot in the grass yada-yada, you know, so although I have a critique I am also part of it, since I am definately a hippie at heart, a hippie and a punk at the same time.

But although I was just now, as your fellow countrymen would may delicately put it, "taking the piss" this was also an earnest, honest movement of young people wanting to overcome alienation, feeling a certain fakeness of society, who had a serious longing for something they imagined as the real. Dark romantic followed in that, has a morbidity, often flirts heavily with death, vampires, drugs (opium in the day), scenes in the midnight at the burial ground or in the catacombs.

The idea of love has not that much to do with it, if we look at the changing definitions of love throughout the centuries. Austen was in no way a romantic, for her love follows out of shared responsibilities, mutual understanding and respect, shared and reasonable economic circumstances etc. For a romantic the feeling alone is the ruler and everything else is fake societal pretense, one has to fight against it and break free. Anglophone and french romantics are less political reactionary and have a great literary quality, northern european romantics are a bit more dangerous. Maybe you could enjoy Novalis hymns about the night, which he wrote while lunging in the catacombs after he lost his very young sweetheart.

Heine started as a romantic as has written some quite famous romantic poems, but then critized the movement for it's idolizing of death among other things and became in the German speaking world the last of the movement and "ended" in a way, he wrote some great parodies, I will cite one for you:

My own sweet love, when you are dead
English translation © Hal Draper
My own sweet love, when you are dead
And the grave’s dark shadows face you,
I shall go down to your earthy bed
And cherish and embrace you.

I kiss you, clasp you wildly athrob,
You cold, unmoving, white-eyed!
I tremble, I thrill, I softly sob –
I become a corpse at your side.

The dead stand up as midnight booms,
They dance with airy grace;
We two remain within our tombs,
I lie in your embrace.

The dead stand up, the Judgment Day
Calls forth the damned and the blest;
We two sleep undisturbed for ay
And lie in love and rest.

Translations by Hal Draper published by Oxford University Press and Suhrkamp/Insel Verlag (1984)

https://oxfordsong.org/song/mein-süßes-lieb-wenn-du-im-grab

Now, you have to keep in mind that it's a great parody. He could only do it so well, because he was a romantic in his youth himself. I am looking forward to some great poem of Poe if you want to share.


Concerning misanthropy: Why despise humanity? What is humanity? Are people not raised to be rude and crude and what has that to do with humanity as a whole? Is not something like Catal Hüyük a great example of what humans can achieve and how great everything could be?


Kind regards

L.

 

[flameinsidesoul]

@Liberia

I’ve been noticing your replies across the threads. You’re not just commenting… you’re weaving insight into every conversation.

What you’re doing here, turning subtle self-doubts and curiosities into real, reflective dialogue is rare. This thread? It won’t just fade. I’ve got a feeling many will come back to it months or even years from now… because truth always echoes.