Kitty Play

[BiBunny]

I think both of those things are a huge part of the issue. Very well put, JM

There's something rolling around my head about an egalitarian version of power exchange, but it's not making sense yet.

I think the whole thing deserves another thread, actually. I have my own thoughts about it, but since I'm a little and not an animal, I won't hijack.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think the whole thing deserves another thread, actually. I have my own thoughts about it, but since I'm a little and not an animal, I won't hijack.

I could totally see where a little could dominate a relationship, in much the same way.

*nods*

 

[SeatWarmer]

I'd personally like to hear these thoughts. As an s-type lap warmer kitty-minded person, it interests me. :3

 

[Netzach]

I'm with JM on this one. I see very little in cat behavior that is reminiscent of the kinds of traits that we associate with submissives. They do not obey commands, they show no overt interest in pleasing their owners, and they make lousy coffee.

I feel horrible for those who will never know the joy of a cat putting his head in your hand and cuddling under your chin like a stuffed animal - not because it's in his instinctual DNA, not because it's expected, not because he's trained but because he wants to.

But I also have had cats that actually care very much about pleasing me, three in four anyway, and I find the same is true in "cat submissives". They go about it differently.

That's the key thing in my intimate relationships, and it's intrinsic to cats. Don't do the roleplay as explicitly, but I call M "Kitty" for all kinds of reasons.

 

[Netzach]

But then I start wondering if the problem is that they've been socialized to find s-type males unappealing, so they flip things around in their heads, pretending that the guy doing the petting and the tending and the putting up with the moody scratching, etc., is somehow the one in charge.

Yes.

I think you're missing the point though. Taking care of something is not being subservient to it. Taking care of it on its own terms isn't being a slave to it. Whether the bottom is role playing a Lamborghini or a cat or a thoroughbred racehorse, these are not really a case where you can say "oh well the person doing the polishing/petting/hoof picking is the sub REALLY." I wonder about ownership and control and assertion-over - and I think those things are kind of ambiguous. A rider has to control a horse but can't steamroller over its instincts to the point of expecting it to act like a cow.

 

[BiBunny]

Yes.

I think you're missing the point though. Taking care of something is not being subservient to it. Taking care of it on its own terms isn't being a slave to it. Whether the bottom is role playing a Lamborghini or a cat or a thoroughbred racehorse, these are not really a case where you can say "oh well the person doing the polishing/petting/hoof picking is the sub REALLY." I wonder about ownership and control and assertion-over - and I think those things are kind of ambiguous. A rider has to control a horse but can't steamroller over its instincts to the point of expecting it to act like a cow.

Do excuse all the Netzach-ass-kissing I've been doing lately, but...dude, I used to make the horse analogy all the time when I talked about this to (RL) people. You just made it make a lot more sense than I ever did.

Thisdeservesitsownthread.

 

[Netzach]

Kitty submission as illustrated by my real cat:

there's a place on the carpet, between my kitchen and my back hallway where my cat will run to with his tail happily up 90 degrees vertical, after chirping at me, making sure that I'm aware of him and following.

If I follow him over to this spot, he then commences to do every dog submission body language trick in the book - flopping over exposing belly and throat, purring like a maniac, kneading, going into pure "helpless kitten" routine. Even drooling a little. Yes, drooling. It's adorable.

But I have to follow him to the "pet me place." That's how it is. As I see it there are conditions that need to be met, for reasons that may make no sense whatsoever. I don't think it TRULY makes me the cat's bitch that I have to walk five feet over to get the kind of affection that I actually desire from a pet, in spades.

I guess some people have to have unconditional surrender. I get that. It's rewarding. I love puppies also - but I've always found that the things in my life which involve the most patience are the most rewarding.

 

[Netzach]

Do excuse all the Netzach-ass-kissing I've been doing lately, but...dude, I used to make the horse analogy all the time when I talked about this to (RL) people. You just made it make a lot more sense than I ever did.

Thisdeservesitsownthread.

I don't even have the kind of read on horses that you might. Horses are amazing, I spent several summers riding them but I think they take years to decode.

 

[YourCaptor]

Yes.

I think you're missing the point though. Taking care of something is not being subservient to it. Taking care of it on its own terms isn't being a slave to it. Whether the bottom is role playing a Lamborghini or a cat or a thoroughbred racehorse, these are not really a case where you can say "oh well the person doing the polishing/petting/hoof picking is the sub REALLY." I wonder about ownership and control and assertion-over - and I think those things are kind of ambiguous. A rider has to control a horse but can't steamroller over its instincts to the point of expecting it to act like a cow.

Word.

I don't get how anyone could think that a kitty is dominant. Even a lion could not be dominant, humans are on top of the food chain for a reason. At worst you have a strained relationship, in which case I guess you're just not a good match.

 

[Loverskitten]

Yes.

I think you're missing the point though. Taking care of something is not being subservient to it. Taking care of it on its own terms isn't being a slave to it. Whether the bottom is role playing a Lamborghini or a cat or a thoroughbred racehorse, these are not really a case where you can say "oh well the person doing the polishing/petting/hoof picking is the sub REALLY." I wonder about ownership and control and assertion-over - and I think those things are kind of ambiguous. A rider has to control a horse but can't steamroller over its instincts to the point of expecting it to act like a cow.

Another swoony Amen!
I think having actual kitties helps One understand the dance.

 

[midwestyankee]

Word.

I don't get how anyone could think that a kitty is dominant. Even a lion could not be dominant, humans are on top of the food chain for a reason. At worst you have a strained relationship, in which case I guess you're just not a good match.

The alternative to submissive is not exclusively dominant. There are plenty of people who are not predominantly either submissive or dominant. Let's not confuse "not submissive" with "must be dominant."

 

[JMohegan]

I feel horrible for those who will never know the joy of a cat putting his head in your hand and cuddling under your chin like a stuffed animal - not because it's in his instinctual DNA, not because it's expected, not because he's trained but because he wants to.

But I also have had cats that actually care very much about pleasing me, three in four anyway, and I find the same is true in "cat submissives". They go about it differently.

That's the key thing in my intimate relationships, and it's intrinsic to cats. Don't do the roleplay as explicitly, but I call M "Kitty" for all kinds of reasons.

I'd say that's the key thing in any intimate relationship. Affection is universal, not s or D.

I accept your assertion that cats are capable of spontaneous, voluntary expressions of affection. Please accept my assertion that dogs are capable of the very same thing. They have individual personalities, like any other reasonably intelligent creature, and express themselves accordingly.

Yes.

I think you're missing the point though. Taking care of something is not being subservient to it. Taking care of it on its own terms isn't being a slave to it. Whether the bottom is role playing a Lamborghini or a cat or a thoroughbred racehorse, these are not really a case where you can say "oh well the person doing the polishing/petting/hoof picking is the sub REALLY." I wonder about ownership and control and assertion-over - and I think those things are kind of ambiguous. A rider has to control a horse but can't steamroller over its instincts to the point of expecting it to act like a cow.

What I'm missing is any sense of deference or obedience in cat behavior.

The fact that your cat parades down the hall to his favorite spot and then lets you pet him sounds like it gives you genuine pleasure, and that's great. No, it doesn't make you the cat's bitch. But it hardly puts you in charge of the proceedings.

As a practical matter, I take the cat & princess IDs as red flags precisely because of the absence of expectation for obedience implicit in the reference. Red flag, as in, bad match for a guy like me.

 

[JMohegan]

Word.

I don't get how anyone could think that a kitty is dominant. Even a lion could not be dominant, humans are on top of the food chain for a reason. At worst you have a strained relationship, in which case I guess you're just not a good match.

"Dominant" in a relationship is not defined by size or strength, but rather by the interactive behavior of the parties.

There are actual dog owners who are thoroughly dominated by their yappy little 12 pound pets.

 

[Loverskitten]

As a practical matter, I take the cat & princess IDs as red flags precisely because of the absence of expectation for obedience implicit in the reference. Red flag, as in, bad match for a guy like me.

OK OK WE GET IT, you don't like kitties.

 

[JMohegan]

OK OK WE GET IT, you don't like kitties.

My apologies for giving offense.

I was attempting a non-judgmental statement. Absence of an inclination toward obedience doesn't make one a bad person, a lesser partner, an undesirable female, or anything negative at all. It simply makes one an unsuitable match for someone who needs a partner who thrives in an atmosphere in which deference and obedience are the expectation. That's all.

The OP asked for thoughts on her mix of "spoiled girly-girlishness" and identification with animals that "aren't really submissive." My point is - under the circumstances, it seems counterproductive to look for a D.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The OP asked for thoughts on her mix of "spoiled girly-girlishness" and identification with animals that "aren't really submissive." My point is - under the circumstances, it seems counterproductive to look for a D.

I agree.

 

[BiBunny]

The alternative to submissive is not exclusively dominant. There are plenty of people who are not predominantly either submissive or dominant. Let's not confuse "not submissive" with "must be dominant."

Right, but the question as to why they don't look for submissive men was raised. That's why--because they aren't dominant.

 

[JMohegan]

Right, but the question as to why they don't look for submissive men was raised. That's why--because they aren't dominant.

You're right, and MWY's point stands no matter which way you look at it. It is entirely possible that they are neither s nor D, and therefore need neither.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You're right, and MWY's point stands no matter which way you look at it. It is entirely possible that they are neither s nor D, and therefore need neither.

Considering how many men think of themselves as D but are really service tops-- I think a lot of those kitties have a good chance of finding just the right guy.

 

[BiBunny]

You're right, and MWY's point stands no matter which way you look at it. It is entirely possible that they are neither s nor D, and therefore need neither.

This is also true.

Considering how many men think of themselves as D but are really service tops-- I think a lot of those kitties have a good chance of finding just the right guy.

Well...the problem is that a lot of the men who think they're dominant but are actually service tops still expect deference to their "dominance." Denial is a beautiful thing.

 

[JMohegan]

Considering how many men think of themselves as D but are really service tops-- I think a lot of those kitties have a good chance of finding just the right guy.

You know, you're surely right about that. Possibly straightforward presentation isn't as useful as I thought it would be.

 

[KoPilot]

Oh man, Netz nails all of the things yet again.

I identify pretty strongly with kitty play for a ton of reasons-- they're animals, so we don't really think of them as gendered, especially if they're spayed/neutered; they're cute and playful, they're extremely social animals albeit independent in (mostly superficial) ways, they're small, they have fewer needs than most other pets.

My current, and very first kitty that is purely mine (versus actually being owned by my mom), was a year old girl I found starving on the street near my old place in Brooklyn last summer, and I kid not when I say that having her in my life has helped me understand my own behaviors more and what submission means to me because we're so alike. And yes, dog-lovers, there are no two cats that act the same.

She's extremely intelligent and well-behaved, I've trained her to do and not do some stuff, she responds very well to gestural commands and attention. But moreover, she is laid-back and tolerates (sometimes likes, even) being toyed with and manhandled and has never bitten or scratched me in retaliation.

That's the kind of dynamic I really have with my husband--his official BDSM label is "bastard"--and his favorite kinds of things are just general fuckery: annoyance, humiliation, and mild to moderate sadism. He wants me to sit at his side rather than at his feet, but I damn well better expect to be interrupted every few minutes by tickling, groping, and other harassment.

 

[Stella_Omega]

There do seem to be a lot of kitties entirely willing to pretend he's the boss. Including many four-footed ones.

 

[sunandshadow]

No, a "dog person" would thrive as the deferential and obedient partner in a relationship.

That's not me.

Except dogs being submissive, one would expect the people who like dogs to be the dominants? And with cats, the opposites - the stereotypical "cat lady" is practically a servant to her cats and tolerates behavior that would be abusive if cats were smart enough to be doing that kind of thing on purpose. When the role of cat-owner is taken by a man in a cartoon, such as Garfield's owner Jon, or Simon the owner of Simon's Cat, they are generally rather submissive men.

Me, I identify with a cat in that I am an independent person who likes being pampered. On the other hand I don't identify as either a sub or a domme, I don't want either to take power and responsibility for others or to cede power and responsibility for myself to someone else.

You're right, and MWY's point stands no matter which way you look at it. It is entirely possible that they are neither s nor D, and therefore need neither.

Yeah, that.

 

[Loverskitten]

You're right, and MWY's point stands no matter which way you look at it. It is entirely possible that they are neither s nor D, and therefore need neither.

I'm really over this thread, I'm crabby and tired today. But...
<----- puts on "cross" me av.

No "need", WANT and both.
I am what I am no matter how many times you try to tell me otherwise.

And I stick to my earlier statement about how you don't get it unless you've had an actual kitty.


That's all I have to say, now someone pet me please