Why is it...

[RedheadedHaze]

-deleted-

 

[Primalex]

..…that those who (in my mind at least) fall into the D category, are the only ones capable of keeping my attention for any length of time, within the course of conversation?

Wild guesses:
a) You like to be entertained in a conversation and people in the D category don't mind to dominate the conversation

I, for example, run immediately when a woman looks for "someone who is able to hold the conversation". It merely means that I'm supposed to write 300 words and the other person replies with 3.


b) You don't differentiate properly between correlation and causality and your observation is just wrong.


c) Still thinking about c)

Just looking for some decidedly charming/sexy/witty banter with a like minded individual to bring some excitement to the daily grind of a solitary & singular profession.

Wouldn't it be better to change your profession then?

You know, something that lasts more than an hour? Someone capable of going the distance? Seduction of the mind doesn't occur in 3 exchanges or less. My guess is those within this realm understand that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWwOJlOI1nU

 

[Primalex]

And as your AV is a cropped picture of a plus sized lingerie model and not your cleavage, I would always wonder how much truth there would be in a conversation.



Somehow people don't want prolonged conversations with me.

No idea why.

 

[RedheadedHaze]

Snarf.

Oh, the fun of the inter webs.

 

[Collar_N_Cuffs]

..…that those who (in my mind at least) fall into the D category, are the only ones capable of keeping my attention for any length of time, within the course of conversation?

~Red

Hmmmm.. If I took offense easily AND thought you might categorize me as an /s, this might fall into the insulting category (in my mind at least). But I don't take offense easily

By way of belated introduction, I'm not familiar with the ways of this world, but perhaps someone with a personality that is as strong as mine lurks here. It may be a long shot but so far, I'm batting zero with vanilla wafers.

Are you sharing info about what you expect out of a partner and what might start to push your buttons? Or taking and sharing any of the numerous questionnaires, checklists etc with anyone? It works best as a two way street, and the more info you supply the better you equip someone to engage you. They can't do the whole lift alone. I understand that you have to find somebody with some lights on to even get started, but that should be workable. Good luck

 

[RedheadedHaze]

Hmmmm.. If I took offense easily AND thought you might categorize me as an /s, this might fall into the insulting category (in my mind at least). But I don't take offense easily





Are you sharing info about what you expect out of a partner and what might start to push your buttons? Or taking and sharing any of the numerous questionnaires, checklists etc with anyone? It works best as a two way street, and the more info you supply the better you equip someone to engage you. They can't do the whole lift alone. I understand that you have to find somebody with some lights on to even get started, but that should be workable. Good luck

As I mentioned, no offense or disrespect intended in the least. If I've done so, my sincerest apologies. It was merely a personal observation based on those I've chatted with.

Not at all interested in making anyone do the lift alone. Not how I operate. Appreciate the feedback hon.

 

[Ahlam]

Is this an ad for personals? I'm confused. I require caffeine so I can be hyper and confused.

 

[CutieMouse]

Is this an ad for personals? I'm confused. I require caffeine so I can be hyper and confused.

It's a personals ad. Because if one wanted intellectual discourse on a public forum, they would actually offer an intellectual topic of conversation.

This thread has no intellectual topic of conversation, other than to bemoan the linguistic idiocy of your average "cyberdom"... Which, come to think of it, the members of this forum are perfectly capable of turning into an interesting topic, just not the one the OP was probably expecting.

 

[Loverskitten]

"Why is it..." there are two of these threads? Or have I had too much coffee?

 

[Ahlam]

It's a personals ad. Because if one wanted intellectual discourse on a public forum, they would actually offer an intellectual topic of conversation.

This thread has no intellectual topic of conversation, other than to bemoan the linguistic idiocy of your average "cyberdom"... Which, come to think of it, the members of this forum are perfectly capable of turning into an interesting topic, just not the one the OP was probably expecting.

Can "cyberdoms" truly be taken seriously? If so, what sets them apart (besides the ability to carry a conversation)? Maybe the anonymity of the internet could be blamed, but I usually have a hard time mentally separating them from the other internet wankers who probably reside in their parents' basements.

 

[Loverskitten]

The ability to carry on a conversation has absolutely nothing to do with one being Dominant or submissive. Nothing.
Just saying.

 

[LWulf]

The ability to carry on a conversation has absolutely nothing to do with one being Dominant or submissive. Nothing.
Just saying.

I quite disagree in one aspect. I have an aunt who could, with little input from another person, hold and maintain a scintillating conversation for hours (or DAYS!). For myself, the shortest I ever spoke to her (with exception to being on the phone) was a "quick" conversation lasting 4 hours** (the longest was ~20 hours?).
There's nothing sexual there, she's a blood relative but because of distance, I don't get to talk with her often, so I "allow" her little indulgences. She definitely dominates the conversation, or, truly challenges a person to take the reins, so to speak. She is quite nimble and able to adjust her conversation very quickly, so it isn't just scatterbrained babbling, and she DOES listen to what you have to say.

**please note, that "4 hours" was comprised of 2 hours talking and then 2 more hours of saying goodbye/edging towards the door.

Can "cyberdoms" truly be taken seriously?

Personally, I'd say no. The very idea of cyber-anything seems to me to be a joke. Fidelity and acquiescence, could be defined in any such cyber relationship by the amount of time a submissive (or dominant for that matter) can log off one social group and log in to another. I used to find it funny to "watch" a submissive of mine log off from our social network with me, promise she was going to sleep, then I'd see she logged on to another network or into the same network with another name. Whether she was chatting with another "cyberdom" or just her sisters in bondage, is immaterial.

The "power" of a cyberdom, the ability to exert their will over another is, as in real life, comes down to the willingness of the submissive. The difference is you can only verbally do so much tongue lashing on the net, with the only recourse is to stop talking to them as a punishment (or tell them to do lines, but that falls on their having a scanner, etc etc). In real life the dom has more choices and their threats are more personable.

 

[midwestyankee]

The ability to carry on a conversation has absolutely nothing to do with one being Dominant or submissive. Nothing.
Just saying.

I agree, in part. A true cyberdom would insist that the submissive do all of the carrying. Of conversations and otherwise.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Because you assume and expect that Ds will be interested in you.

Similarly, I bet we all know hetero women who can't keep an interest in conversation with other women, hetero men who don't talk to other men, gay men who don't talk to women, dominants who think that other dominants are boring.

It's you, not them.

 

[Primalex]

Did she disappear already?


*sighs*
I just can't hold a conversation.

 

[Wintermute01]

So hard to get out of bed?