bigbad_babybird
Virgin
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Posts
- 10
ha ha
.
.
Top-opolis
- Thread starter rosco rathbone
- Start date
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
Pure said:
I don't see how gratitude and the negative emotions are necessarily mutually exclusive. I seek, in theory, a beneficiary who regardless of his shame, is incapable of refusing the gift.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
evesdream said:
& that is why I call it extending the black hand of sexual philanthropy. I wouldn't for a second pretend that there wasn't a huge element of one-ups-manship to it. However, I see the gnome and I as fundamentally united against femininity in some way and, crucially, his pleasure is mine and the more malevolent it is, the more it is mine.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
and now for something easy on the eyes...
This is what I call "good chunky". This is the perfect body from the neck down, combine her with the face of the girl I posted a couple of days ago and you'd have perfection.
rosco "ratso rizzco" wrathbone
This is what I call "good chunky". This is the perfect body from the neck down, combine her with the face of the girl I posted a couple of days ago and you'd have perfection.
rosco "ratso rizzco" wrathbone
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Very sexy, naturally lying breasts.
Not sure I've much more to say on the untermenschen.
Perhaps the psychoanalytic slant of evesdream is indeed applicable. Male sexual fury as rage at mom.
But the libido innately has an agressive component; maybe we all have the 'furies' inside, and neither parent needs to do or be
anything special.
Best,
J.
Not sure I've much more to say on the untermenschen.
Perhaps the psychoanalytic slant of evesdream is indeed applicable. Male sexual fury as rage at mom.
But the libido innately has an agressive component; maybe we all have the 'furies' inside, and neither parent needs to do or be
anything special.
Best,
J.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
Nothing is more fascinating to me than the untermenschen. I am surprised to see you at loss for words on a topic.
MissTaken
Biker Chick
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2001
- Posts
- 20,570
Low self esteem can contribute to many idiosyncracies and manifests itself differently for all of us. No, I don't buy into the train of thought that implies that if everyone felt good about themselves, the world would be a peaceful, happier place.
I do, however, that one's sense of self worth or lack thereof contributes to the choices a person makes. If someone feels unworthy, they are not likely to set long term goals or try new things, expecting only failure. Then, if they do summon the courage, they may find success and crumple under the expectations for further success unless their self esteem comes from within.
Too often, people rely on others to create, build up or otherwise enhance their self esteem. This may manifest itself in the submissive who seeks the Loving Dominant and is more caught up in being a "good submissive" rather than being "me."
This train of thought can be destructive to a relationship in that the Dominant ends up being topped by manipulative gestures and act for attention and finds no pleasure or release in that they aren't in control.
I may be off base here as I am tired, but just sharing a few thoughts.
If this line of conversation is not appropriate for this thread, we could certainly take it elsewhere
QUOTE]Originally posted by Pure
Miss T, you asked about self esteem and domination. Are you aware of several critiques of 'self-esteem' as a predictor of various things; as something that therapists and friends do well to strengthen?
Here is a moral I--me, personally-- might draw from what's below: on the 'sub' issue, some will have 'low self esteem', some 'high.' Not much the dominating person does is going to change the situation. This is not a licence for criminal mistreatment of lse subs, but it does excuse the dominating person from the misguided effort of undertaking a therapeutic procedure to raise it.
An excerpt from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,625237,00.html
At last we can abandon that tosh about low self-esteem
The psychobabblers' snake-oil remedies have been exposed as a sham
Polly Toynbee
Friday December 28, 2001
The Guardian
Occasionally a new piece of research demolishes a myth with one fell blow. It does not happen often (social research tends to run along familiar tracks), but once in a while an iconoclastic study changes ideas. No one reading Self-Esteem - The Costs and Causes of Low Self-Worth by Professor Nicholas Emler of the LSE, should feel quite at ease again using a modern piece of psychobabble that has infused the language of sociology, criminology and education without real scrutiny until now.
The accepted view has been that self-esteem - or the lack of it - lies at the root of almost every disorder from delinquency and drug abuse to violence and child abuse. One standard text after another takes this as a given fact without any scientific evidence, repeated as gospel from right to left, from Melanie Phillips to Oprah Winfrey. More than 2,000 books currently in print offer self-help prescriptions for raising self-esteem. A vast array of expensive social programmes in Europe and the US designed to solve drug dependency or delinquency are based on attempts to raise self-esteem. Some have tried to raise the self-esteem of whole schools or even an entire citizenry, describing self-esteem as a "social vaccine" against anti-social behaviour.
Low self-esteem is the zeitgeist social disease. It has many useful attributes: it elevates self-love and sanctifies self-satisfaction. It justifies the introspection of the therapy addict. It excuses bad behaviour, turning perpetrator into victim. For teachers, it makes dealing with bullying, arrogant and disruptive pupils almost impossible, if beneath the insufferable exterior there is supposed to be a whimpering, self-loathing child in need of affirmation and praise.
Professor Emler turns all this on its head. Scrutinising all the available research on both sides of the Atlantic, he finds no evidence that low self-esteem causes anti-social behaviour. Quite the reverse. Those who think highly of themselves are the ones most prone to violence and most likely to take risks, believing themselves invulnerable. They are more likely to commit crimes, drive dangerously, risk their health with drugs and alcohol. Exceptionally low self-esteem is indeed damaging - but only to the victim, not to anyone else. Those with low self-esteem are more likely to commit suicide, to be depressed, to become victims of bullying, domestic violence, loneliness and social ostracism.
There ought to be a collective sigh of relief among many professionals on reading this eye-opening work. It is one of those moments when the blindingly obvious suddenly emerges from a fog of unquestioned nonsense. Teachers, social workers and probation officers do not have to massage the already inflated egos of bullies with unwarranted praise. Asserting his own superiority over his classmates, over-confident of abilities he does not have, it will do no harm to try to bring him down a peg.
Emler looks at the relation between self-esteem and academic success. Does competition in school cause damaging failure? Most surprisingly he concludes that academic success or failure has very little impact on pupils' self-esteem. High self-esteem pupils will explain away failure to suit their previous high opinions of themselves: they make excuses that they were unlucky, suffered some bias or that they didn't try. Odder still, those with low self-esteem will not be buoyed up by academic success either. Sadly, they will regard it as a fluke and continue with their previous low estimation of their abilities. He concludes that it is exceedingly difficult to shift people's pre-existing view of themselves, even with tangible success. Nor is self- esteem any predictor of how well or badly someone will do academically. Even if confidence boosting worked (which he doubts) it would have no effect on exam results.
So where does self-esteem come from? Looking at studies of twins, Emler concludes that genetic predisposition has the single strongest effect. Less surprisingly, after that it is parental attitudes. If they love, reinforce, praise and respect a young child, the effect lasts for life. Physical and above all sexual abuse of children is devastatingly and permanently damaging to self-esteem. Beyond these early influences, everything else that might be done to increase/ decrease self-esteem has virtually no effect. (This is bad news for the therapy business.) An interesting example: it was assumed that to belong to an outcast ethnic minority would harm self-esteem, but Emler finds it has no effect. People draw self-esteem from the good opinions of their own group and reject abuse from outsiders as the fault of others, not their own. [...] [/QUOTE]
I do, however, that one's sense of self worth or lack thereof contributes to the choices a person makes. If someone feels unworthy, they are not likely to set long term goals or try new things, expecting only failure. Then, if they do summon the courage, they may find success and crumple under the expectations for further success unless their self esteem comes from within.
Too often, people rely on others to create, build up or otherwise enhance their self esteem. This may manifest itself in the submissive who seeks the Loving Dominant and is more caught up in being a "good submissive" rather than being "me."
This train of thought can be destructive to a relationship in that the Dominant ends up being topped by manipulative gestures and act for attention and finds no pleasure or release in that they aren't in control.
I may be off base here as I am tired, but just sharing a few thoughts.
If this line of conversation is not appropriate for this thread, we could certainly take it elsewhere
QUOTE]Originally posted by Pure
Miss T, you asked about self esteem and domination. Are you aware of several critiques of 'self-esteem' as a predictor of various things; as something that therapists and friends do well to strengthen?
Here is a moral I--me, personally-- might draw from what's below: on the 'sub' issue, some will have 'low self esteem', some 'high.' Not much the dominating person does is going to change the situation. This is not a licence for criminal mistreatment of lse subs, but it does excuse the dominating person from the misguided effort of undertaking a therapeutic procedure to raise it.
An excerpt from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,625237,00.html
At last we can abandon that tosh about low self-esteem
The psychobabblers' snake-oil remedies have been exposed as a sham
Polly Toynbee
Friday December 28, 2001
The Guardian
Occasionally a new piece of research demolishes a myth with one fell blow. It does not happen often (social research tends to run along familiar tracks), but once in a while an iconoclastic study changes ideas. No one reading Self-Esteem - The Costs and Causes of Low Self-Worth by Professor Nicholas Emler of the LSE, should feel quite at ease again using a modern piece of psychobabble that has infused the language of sociology, criminology and education without real scrutiny until now.
The accepted view has been that self-esteem - or the lack of it - lies at the root of almost every disorder from delinquency and drug abuse to violence and child abuse. One standard text after another takes this as a given fact without any scientific evidence, repeated as gospel from right to left, from Melanie Phillips to Oprah Winfrey. More than 2,000 books currently in print offer self-help prescriptions for raising self-esteem. A vast array of expensive social programmes in Europe and the US designed to solve drug dependency or delinquency are based on attempts to raise self-esteem. Some have tried to raise the self-esteem of whole schools or even an entire citizenry, describing self-esteem as a "social vaccine" against anti-social behaviour.
Low self-esteem is the zeitgeist social disease. It has many useful attributes: it elevates self-love and sanctifies self-satisfaction. It justifies the introspection of the therapy addict. It excuses bad behaviour, turning perpetrator into victim. For teachers, it makes dealing with bullying, arrogant and disruptive pupils almost impossible, if beneath the insufferable exterior there is supposed to be a whimpering, self-loathing child in need of affirmation and praise.
Professor Emler turns all this on its head. Scrutinising all the available research on both sides of the Atlantic, he finds no evidence that low self-esteem causes anti-social behaviour. Quite the reverse. Those who think highly of themselves are the ones most prone to violence and most likely to take risks, believing themselves invulnerable. They are more likely to commit crimes, drive dangerously, risk their health with drugs and alcohol. Exceptionally low self-esteem is indeed damaging - but only to the victim, not to anyone else. Those with low self-esteem are more likely to commit suicide, to be depressed, to become victims of bullying, domestic violence, loneliness and social ostracism.
There ought to be a collective sigh of relief among many professionals on reading this eye-opening work. It is one of those moments when the blindingly obvious suddenly emerges from a fog of unquestioned nonsense. Teachers, social workers and probation officers do not have to massage the already inflated egos of bullies with unwarranted praise. Asserting his own superiority over his classmates, over-confident of abilities he does not have, it will do no harm to try to bring him down a peg.
Emler looks at the relation between self-esteem and academic success. Does competition in school cause damaging failure? Most surprisingly he concludes that academic success or failure has very little impact on pupils' self-esteem. High self-esteem pupils will explain away failure to suit their previous high opinions of themselves: they make excuses that they were unlucky, suffered some bias or that they didn't try. Odder still, those with low self-esteem will not be buoyed up by academic success either. Sadly, they will regard it as a fluke and continue with their previous low estimation of their abilities. He concludes that it is exceedingly difficult to shift people's pre-existing view of themselves, even with tangible success. Nor is self- esteem any predictor of how well or badly someone will do academically. Even if confidence boosting worked (which he doubts) it would have no effect on exam results.
So where does self-esteem come from? Looking at studies of twins, Emler concludes that genetic predisposition has the single strongest effect. Less surprisingly, after that it is parental attitudes. If they love, reinforce, praise and respect a young child, the effect lasts for life. Physical and above all sexual abuse of children is devastatingly and permanently damaging to self-esteem. Beyond these early influences, everything else that might be done to increase/ decrease self-esteem has virtually no effect. (This is bad news for the therapy business.) An interesting example: it was assumed that to belong to an outcast ethnic minority would harm self-esteem, but Emler finds it has no effect. People draw self-esteem from the good opinions of their own group and reject abuse from outsiders as the fault of others, not their own. [...] [/QUOTE]
lark sparrow
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Posts
- 1,715
Our special presentation will start shortly, but first a message from our sponsors
With a tale that will soon be classic
About a woman U already know
No prostitute she, but the mayor of your brain
Pussy Control (Are U ready?) Aaah, Pussy Control, oh... Aaah, Pussy Control, oh
No! Why?
So what if my sisters are triflin'?
They just don't know
She said "Mama didn't tell'em what she told me
'Girl, U need Pussy Control'" (Are U ready?) Aaah, Pussy Control, oh... Aaah, Pussy Control, oh
So push up on somebody wanna hear that
Cuz this somebody here don't wanna know
Boy, U better act like U understand
When U roll with Pussy Control" (Are U ready?) Aaah, Pussy Control, oh... Aaah, Pussy Control, oh
Can I tell U what I'm thinkin' that U already know?
U need a motherfucker that respects your name"
Now say it, Pussy Control (Are U ready?) Aaah, Pussy Control, oh... Aaah, Pussy Control, oh
And the moral of this motherfucker is
Ladies, make'em act like they know
U are, was, and always will be Pussy Control (Are U ready?)
With a tale that will soon be classic
About a woman U already know
No prostitute she, but the mayor of your brain
Pussy Control (Are U ready?) Aaah, Pussy Control, oh... Aaah, Pussy Control, oh
No! Why?
So what if my sisters are triflin'?
They just don't know
She said "Mama didn't tell'em what she told me
'Girl, U need Pussy Control'" (Are U ready?) Aaah, Pussy Control, oh... Aaah, Pussy Control, oh
So push up on somebody wanna hear that
Cuz this somebody here don't wanna know
Boy, U better act like U understand
When U roll with Pussy Control" (Are U ready?) Aaah, Pussy Control, oh... Aaah, Pussy Control, oh
Can I tell U what I'm thinkin' that U already know?
U need a motherfucker that respects your name"
Now say it, Pussy Control (Are U ready?) Aaah, Pussy Control, oh... Aaah, Pussy Control, oh
And the moral of this motherfucker is
Ladies, make'em act like they know
U are, was, and always will be Pussy Control (Are U ready?)
zipman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2002
- Posts
- 38,552
scarlet vixen said:
Hopefully, your just an armchair psychologist, otherwise, I can't imagine the number of people that you would be mis-diagnosing on a daily basis! Just a little more candor for you since you seem to appreciate it.
The concept of stabbing is indeed a psychological one, although would it change anything if I called it "savagely thrusting into her?" As to the soreness, we are both usually sore the next day. When we fuck like that, which is not all the time, it's only natural for us to be sore the next day.
After reading the article you linked, I would say that I do not exhibit a single one of the behaviors they identified, let alone 6 of them.
Haven't you ever been "fucked silly?" The only reason that I can imagine that you would doubt what I described is because you have never experienced it yourself.
Moving on, interesting poll Pure. I would have to say that I fluctuate on the list, depending on my mood. My girlfriend is highly orgasmic, and can orgasm just from having her nipples sucked. I like it that she gets so turned on and derives so much pleasure from what we do.
I do make her ask permission first, and usually I will allow her to after waiting a bit. Personally, I like watching her cum so hard.
So where are you on the list Pure? I find myself continually amazed that someone who asks such intimate questions of others never ever volunteers anything themselves. Is BDSM simply an academic exercise for you? Is it lack of r/l experience? Come on Pure, I think it's time to ante up.
The rest of the conversation on here about revenge just don't resonate with me as that emotion doesn't enter into my mind while having sex.
Lancecastor
Lit's Most Beloved Poster
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 54,670
Re: and now for something easy on the eyes...
Good chunky, yes.
But use a wooden spoon to get every last drop...
rosco rathbone said:
Good chunky, yes.
But use a wooden spoon to get every last drop...
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
Re: Re: and now for something easy on the eyes...
Wooden spoon? I'd take off my belt and beat her till she ovulated.
Lancecastor said:
Wooden spoon? I'd take off my belt and beat her till she ovulated.
lark sparrow
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Posts
- 1,715
evesdream said:
Well, it's not a personal statement (just some Prince lyrics), but somehow seemed to fit into this conversation regarding some men's rage/revenge against women/mom/etc., and the perceived climate they may be rallying against, no?
scarlet vixen
Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2001
- Posts
- 48
zipman7 said:
Hadja goin' there, Mr. Zip? Checkin' out the list of 'delusions'. Didya see, 'thinks women are submissive by nature'? Didya note the line saying that whether the patient considers himself a 'New Man' neither counts for or against the diagnosis? Do ya think you can judge accurately whether you have delusions? Jess funnin' ya.
Seriously, I'm glad you've freed yourself of 'macho delusions'; as you now admit, you're as sore as she. It's 'us'.
As to the last little gibe, I'll let that pass. It sounds like a rendition of the high school males' line with a recalcitrant date: " I bet you're frigid."
Listen, RR is at least an open prehistoricist. You seem unsure if you want to be the 1990s male or the 1790s male. Is that thang a silver walking stick, or a candycane yer holdin' there.
Best to ya, all in good spirits, I hope,
SV
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Zip said:
So where are you on the list Pure? I find myself continually amazed that someone who asks such intimate questions of others never ever volunteers anything themselves. Is BDSM simply an academic exercise for you? Is it lack of r/l experience? Come on Pure, I think it's time to ante up.
Hi Zip,
About the 'intimate questions of others'.... There weren't any on that posting. It was asking about a viewpoint [concerning 'a dominating person'] whether dominance involved controlling someone's sexuality/jouissance. And how those Jewish aunts might be put to use.
Since most folks either said all or none, I don't rank the inquiry as successful.
The mistresses I've encountered irl have been in the 6/7 range; restrictions and using sex as an avenue of control.
I don't consider this a therapy group--a compulsory one--I disclose more in 1-1 exchanges. It's unfortunate that somehow offends you, but I ran into it in Ishmael. Oh well.
J.
So where are you on the list Pure? I find myself continually amazed that someone who asks such intimate questions of others never ever volunteers anything themselves. Is BDSM simply an academic exercise for you? Is it lack of r/l experience? Come on Pure, I think it's time to ante up.
Hi Zip,
About the 'intimate questions of others'.... There weren't any on that posting. It was asking about a viewpoint [concerning 'a dominating person'] whether dominance involved controlling someone's sexuality/jouissance. And how those Jewish aunts might be put to use.
Since most folks either said all or none, I don't rank the inquiry as successful.
The mistresses I've encountered irl have been in the 6/7 range; restrictions and using sex as an avenue of control.
I don't consider this a therapy group--a compulsory one--I disclose more in 1-1 exchanges. It's unfortunate that somehow offends you, but I ran into it in Ishmael. Oh well.
J.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
More Scarlett Vixen is what we need around here.
Surely you aren't going to sit still for this abuse, Zippo? She's done everything except accuse you of false domination!
(I am like the anti-sheriff...."Go ahead boys, shoot each other down at high noon see if I care"....bloody gunfight in the Topopolis streets.....)
Surely you aren't going to sit still for this abuse, Zippo? She's done everything except accuse you of false domination!
(I am like the anti-sheriff...."Go ahead boys, shoot each other down at high noon see if I care"....bloody gunfight in the Topopolis streets.....)
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
"Come here a minute, Pure. Sit down. Let's talk"....
*gag*
*gag*
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi,
MissT:
Low self esteem can contribute to many idiosyncracies and manifests itself differently for all of us. No, I don't buy into the train of thought that implies that if everyone felt good about themselves, the world would be a peaceful, happier place.
I do, however, that one's sense of self worth or lack thereof contributes to the choices a person makes. If someone feels unworthy, they are not likely to set long term goals or try new things, expecting only failure. Then, if they do summon the courage, they may find success and crumple under the expectations for further success unless their self esteem comes from within.
Too often, people rely on others to create, build up or otherwise enhance their self esteem. This may manifest itself in the submissive who seeks the Loving Dominant and is more caught up in being a "good submissive" rather than being "me."
This train of thought can be destructive to a relationship in that the Dominant ends up being topped by manipulative gestures and act for attention and finds no pleasure or release in that they aren't in control.
I may be off base here as I am tired, but just sharing a few thoughts.
If this line of conversation is not appropriate for this thread, we could certainly take it elsewhere
Interesting thoughts. I suppose a sub might try to arrange to have the dom raise his self esteem. On another topic, however,
there was one possible implication of the article on Emler that is, I think, quite relevant to this thread. That it is a fool's errand and NON-therapeutic for a person of along term dominating project to attempt to raise the self esteem of the one whom he is subordinating.
That's pretty much holy writ in some of Daddy's quarters around here, imo.
Any comments on this?
J.
MissT:
Low self esteem can contribute to many idiosyncracies and manifests itself differently for all of us. No, I don't buy into the train of thought that implies that if everyone felt good about themselves, the world would be a peaceful, happier place.
I do, however, that one's sense of self worth or lack thereof contributes to the choices a person makes. If someone feels unworthy, they are not likely to set long term goals or try new things, expecting only failure. Then, if they do summon the courage, they may find success and crumple under the expectations for further success unless their self esteem comes from within.
Too often, people rely on others to create, build up or otherwise enhance their self esteem. This may manifest itself in the submissive who seeks the Loving Dominant and is more caught up in being a "good submissive" rather than being "me."
This train of thought can be destructive to a relationship in that the Dominant ends up being topped by manipulative gestures and act for attention and finds no pleasure or release in that they aren't in control.
I may be off base here as I am tired, but just sharing a few thoughts.
If this line of conversation is not appropriate for this thread, we could certainly take it elsewhere
Interesting thoughts. I suppose a sub might try to arrange to have the dom raise his self esteem. On another topic, however,
there was one possible implication of the article on Emler that is, I think, quite relevant to this thread. That it is a fool's errand and NON-therapeutic for a person of along term dominating project to attempt to raise the self esteem of the one whom he is subordinating.
That's pretty much holy writ in some of Daddy's quarters around here, imo.
Any comments on this?
J.
MissTaken
Biker Chick
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2001
- Posts
- 20,570
Pure said:
I have posted on this issue on a number of occasions. It isn't up to a Dom to "raise" a sub's self esteem.
I do believe the sub's self esteem must be in tact before getting into the relationship or the relationship is not going to be successful and fulfilling for both parties.
I would be interested in hearing from the "daddy's."
I am not sure where you find that this is "holy writ" around here except for in this thread.
Is it possible that some are percieving a loving and affectionate relationship as "therapy?" Does wanting your submissive to feel good about being with you, as a Dom, mean that you are a "Daddy?"
If you, as a Dom, feel a need to make one of your goals for a sub to raise her self image, it isn't a healthy relationship, but if the self esteem is strengthened by being with you, that seems natural in a good relationship.
I don't know if I am making sense. It is late and I am tired.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
MissT said,
Is it possible that some are percieving a loving and affectionate relationship as "therapy?" Does wanting your submissive to feel good about being with you, as a Dom, mean that you are a "Daddy?"
If you, as a Dom, feel a need to make one of your goals for a sub to raise her self image, it isn't a healthy relationship, but if the self esteem is strengthened by being with you, that seems natural in a good relationship.
Hi Miss T, I appreciate your input on this thread but this topic seems to be ignored. The issue, of course, is the 'loving' relationship. I don't have a problem with that, except that perhaps you make assumptions about that 'love'-- that it's soft, sweet, romantic and egalitarian; or that of an enlightened late 20th century parent. The old time and OT fatherly figures--also called 'loving'--were different: Witness Proverbs 3: 2 "For whom the Lord loveth, he correcteth."
The gist of Emler is that the self esteem isn't going to change much, but yes, 'good relationships' (how defined?) affect people for the better.
zipman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2002
- Posts
- 38,552
scarlet vixen said:
Damn fine spirits, and thanks for asking. I must have missed the day in BDSM school when we were asked to choose between being a 1990's or 1790's male.
Silly me picks and chooses whatever I want. My surity is that what I do is right for me and my gf. RR - You need to hang out with Lance to learn how to be a little more subtle when stirring shit! LOL
Pure - Your lack of public contributions doesn't offend me at all. However, I think that mainly having theoretical discussions about hypothetical situations lacks the context of real life to test the theories.
MissTaken
Biker Chick
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2001
- Posts
- 20,570
Pure,
I believe you are assuming an awful lot based on my post. My reference to "loving" relationships does not project anything. Read of it what you will, but I am truly wondering what this "Daddy" Dom image is, why it is constantly referred to on this thread and why is there a negative connotation associated with it?
Some Doms want to be nurturers.
Some don't.
Some find a middle road.
So, what's the beef here? Does it really matter as long as your choice works for you?
However, I believe in terms of self esteem and relationships, we are in agreement.
I believe you are assuming an awful lot based on my post. My reference to "loving" relationships does not project anything. Read of it what you will, but I am truly wondering what this "Daddy" Dom image is, why it is constantly referred to on this thread and why is there a negative connotation associated with it?
Some Doms want to be nurturers.
Some don't.
Some find a middle road.
So, what's the beef here? Does it really matter as long as your choice works for you?
However, I believe in terms of self esteem and relationships, we are in agreement.
Pure said:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Miss T,
you said,
Pure,
I believe you are assuming an awful lot based on my post. My reference to "loving" relationships does not project anything. Read of it what you will, but I am truly wondering what this "Daddy" Dom image is, why it is constantly referred to on this thread and why is there a negative connotation associated with it?
Some Doms want to be nurturers.
Some don't.
Some find a middle road.
So, what's the beef here? Does it really matter as long as your choice works for you?
'Daddy Dom' is an analytical and polemical category of RR, so I'll let him explain and defend.
I looked up my own posting 2-22 and it said in part
[To UCE]
In a live-in relationship, however, there's a lot more activities going on, under even the severest domination. What RR calls the 'dom', the dom's dom, always does, imo, some quasi-parental nurturing. Looking after the submitting person, lovingly. That keeps the relationship going. Call such a dom, a Quasi Parental Dom, QPD.
I agree with [your, UCE's] 'benevolent dictator' for this residential QPD** and I'm glad you [UCE] said 'dictator'. The 'parenting' then, is likely to be that of an 'old style' parent, not the new age parent who's always saying I'm-your-pal-and-I'll be-happy-to- explain-and-then-we'll-all-vote :
**There are lots of softer versions of the QPD, which make him or her more a therapist and friend, if you read some of the descriptions on this board.
So I have, after defining domination, described a 'Quasi Parental Dom/me' as doing some nurturing. I have described a range of such figures from 'benevolent dictator' (UCE's term) and 'old style parent' [OT God, in my last post] to 'new age parent'. Around the latter area, at the extreme edge of its 'softness', is the 'therapeutic friend' parent (let me help you with your problem), who is hardly parental at all.
My interest is mainly zoological. To identify the beasts and describe them. I want to understand each weird or perverse leaning, including those I have. If an alleged domme wants to do therapy and finds a willing victim/patient, and they are happy, fine. There are people around the world doing all kinds of kink, --in their own view-- wonderful, things.
In this zoological project we do see oddities, just as in the 'real life' animal kingdom we hear of 'sea lions' and 'sea horses'. These are not, of course, 'lions' or 'horses'. It's no insult to them to say so.
So if a person--the alleged 'dom/me'-- virtually turns parenting into some friendly therapeutic folderol, I say he or she is not 'dominating', since his will is not being imposed on another. There is no 'beef' as such, there are any number of kinksters, weirdos and pervs (among whom I number myself), with, as you suggest, more or less benevolent motives. They all have their fans and lovers, and that's great in my opinion. I just want their activities accurately described.
What do you think? Thanks for listening. As you see I have my own slant, and if you want to hear of RR's polemical terms and whipping boys, ask him.
Best,
J.
you said,
Pure,
I believe you are assuming an awful lot based on my post. My reference to "loving" relationships does not project anything. Read of it what you will, but I am truly wondering what this "Daddy" Dom image is, why it is constantly referred to on this thread and why is there a negative connotation associated with it?
Some Doms want to be nurturers.
Some don't.
Some find a middle road.
So, what's the beef here? Does it really matter as long as your choice works for you?
'Daddy Dom' is an analytical and polemical category of RR, so I'll let him explain and defend.
I looked up my own posting 2-22 and it said in part
[To UCE]
In a live-in relationship, however, there's a lot more activities going on, under even the severest domination. What RR calls the 'dom', the dom's dom, always does, imo, some quasi-parental nurturing. Looking after the submitting person, lovingly. That keeps the relationship going. Call such a dom, a Quasi Parental Dom, QPD.
I agree with [your, UCE's] 'benevolent dictator' for this residential QPD** and I'm glad you [UCE] said 'dictator'. The 'parenting' then, is likely to be that of an 'old style' parent, not the new age parent who's always saying I'm-your-pal-and-I'll be-happy-to- explain-and-then-we'll-all-vote :
**There are lots of softer versions of the QPD, which make him or her more a therapist and friend, if you read some of the descriptions on this board.
So I have, after defining domination, described a 'Quasi Parental Dom/me' as doing some nurturing. I have described a range of such figures from 'benevolent dictator' (UCE's term) and 'old style parent' [OT God, in my last post] to 'new age parent'. Around the latter area, at the extreme edge of its 'softness', is the 'therapeutic friend' parent (let me help you with your problem), who is hardly parental at all.
My interest is mainly zoological. To identify the beasts and describe them. I want to understand each weird or perverse leaning, including those I have. If an alleged domme wants to do therapy and finds a willing victim/patient, and they are happy, fine. There are people around the world doing all kinds of kink, --in their own view-- wonderful, things.
In this zoological project we do see oddities, just as in the 'real life' animal kingdom we hear of 'sea lions' and 'sea horses'. These are not, of course, 'lions' or 'horses'. It's no insult to them to say so.
So if a person--the alleged 'dom/me'-- virtually turns parenting into some friendly therapeutic folderol, I say he or she is not 'dominating', since his will is not being imposed on another. There is no 'beef' as such, there are any number of kinksters, weirdos and pervs (among whom I number myself), with, as you suggest, more or less benevolent motives. They all have their fans and lovers, and that's great in my opinion. I just want their activities accurately described.
What do you think? Thanks for listening. As you see I have my own slant, and if you want to hear of RR's polemical terms and whipping boys, ask him.
Best,
J.
Last edited:
evesdream
perfect fifth
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2002
- Posts
- 5,716
Back to sex and violence
Someone asked me about my interest or take on the "dark" side of sex. Well, that isn't my view of it. Not "darkness" or "evil", simply emotion, amoral.
When I enjoy something sexual that pushes the limits, it isn't moral limits that I want to be concerned with (which is what the word dark suggests to me) it's pushing emotional limits and being able to show oneself and respond emotionally, or un-reservedly. Which is challenge enough!
For some people (who I do not understand)this doesn't have to be a violent or angry exchange, but the violence/force/the throwing of weight, to me, expresses something as right and sincere as tenderness. I would feel lied to without it.
When it comes to sexuality and sexual response, and my most bloody or self-destructive fantasies, the violence and pain are requisite but secondary to the exchange of intense emotions that go with it. The violence (given or accepted, real or fantasized) is a perfect conductor for emotional responses to a whole world of things.
says the pacifist.
For some reason when i come to a lounge or a forum or a thread like this, I assume that i'm inhabiting a place where the general sentiment (if not consensus, never a ^%* consensus) is the same.
Someone asked me about my interest or take on the "dark" side of sex. Well, that isn't my view of it. Not "darkness" or "evil", simply emotion, amoral.
When I enjoy something sexual that pushes the limits, it isn't moral limits that I want to be concerned with (which is what the word dark suggests to me) it's pushing emotional limits and being able to show oneself and respond emotionally, or un-reservedly. Which is challenge enough!
For some people (who I do not understand)this doesn't have to be a violent or angry exchange, but the violence/force/the throwing of weight, to me, expresses something as right and sincere as tenderness. I would feel lied to without it.
When it comes to sexuality and sexual response, and my most bloody or self-destructive fantasies, the violence and pain are requisite but secondary to the exchange of intense emotions that go with it. The violence (given or accepted, real or fantasized) is a perfect conductor for emotional responses to a whole world of things.
says the pacifist.
For some reason when i come to a lounge or a forum or a thread like this, I assume that i'm inhabiting a place where the general sentiment (if not consensus, never a ^%* consensus) is the same.
