Definitions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

dittosabrina -> Definitions (12/16/2006 7:29:27 AM)

I recently contacted a submissive who had experienced some events so
unpleasant that she had decided to close down her profile.  She had the
good manners to reply and let me know this.
She said that she had deleted her profile after having had a bad experience, because "i find my submissive nature to be anintrinsic part of me and have yet to find a Sir capable of understanding that."

That struck me as odd phrasing.  I wrote back and asked,

"Thank you for letting me know.
It's unfortunate you had a bad experience.  I'm curious, though,
what you mean when you write that your submissive nature being
intrinsic isn't understood.  In what way was that not understood?  Are you saying that someone expected you to NOT be submissive in certain situations, and didn't
understand why you could not do that?"

She responded that
"....few Dominants have the patience understanding and skill to take
a raw natural born submissive and mold her, teach her and inspire her to perform."

This got me thinking......

"I'm sorry to hear that.  I've heard so many nightmare stories like this.  It makes me embarassed sometimes to call myself Dominant.
Perhaps you've seen the movie "Secretary"?  I had thought the
"Doms" the Secretary meets were over-exaggerations of stupid behavior,
but they're actually pretty accurate.

It's funny that someone has not yet devised a way to address this perennial
problem.

I defend anyone's right to define, for themselves, what it means to be a Dom or a sub.  That has to include the people often referred to as "wannabe Doms" or as "not really a submissive".  We don't have to ACCEPT their definitions (or their behavior) but in an intolerant world, we do have to be rationally tolerant of those people if we hope to escape persecution ourselves.

I am always sickend by the glee with which some harpys in chat forums pounce upon people they regard as "fakes" or as doing things "wrong".  We are all pretentious, insincere or mistaken, from SOMEONE'S point of view.

The problem is, there doesn't seem to be an effective and efficient way for persons to express these definitions to each other, and see if they'd be a good "fit" or not.

You can talk all day about sex, play, and vanilla interests.  But that may not
really convey CHARACHTER.  For example, the Dom who demanded you trust him completely within two days.  How do you ask about such a thing?
"Are you a patient Dom?"  is probably not going to cut it.   Or, suppose he asked
you "At what point in time will you completely trust me?"  You would be hard-pressed to answer, I suspect.

Finding out what a sub needs can be challenging, especially with a person who is
new to this.  So often, they really aren't sure. 

In my experience, women tend to learn to enjoy sex only after having been
cajoled or pressured into trying things.  Instead of expressing preferences, many women vaguely say that they'd do "anything" for the "right man". 

Unfortunately, the "right man" doesn't actually exist, and they have NO idea
what "anything" really entails.

As for submissives.....so many are looking for a Mind Reader.  That perfect
Dom who will automatically and unerringly just "know" what they need, so they
won't be burdened with the responsiblity of defining things.  These Subs expect to
be treated like the unique people they are, yet they're either incapable of,
or unwilling to, supply the Dom with the information he needs.

"Control me when I want you to control me.....and if you are a REAL Dom, you'll know when that is" is the absurd essence of these misguided subs.

So, a challenge for you.  Put yourself in a Dom's shoes.  How would he
"mold, teach and inspire" you to perform?  Be explicit.
Imagine that you are writing an "owner's manual" to your Dom. 
Begin with Trust.  What does it take to earn your trust?  How LONG does it take?
Why do you give your trust, or withold it from someone?
I think you may find this a bit difficult to do......imagine, then, how hard it
can be for a Dom to get this information out of you, if you are uncertain of
it yourself!

Try an experiment.  Have you ever looked at profiles posted by other female submissives?  Take a look at some of them, try to imagine that you are a Dom.
What are your impressons?  What information is missing, and why?  Do they offer
TOO much information about certain things, and why?"
***************************

Just a postscript here.   You'll notice that the frustrated sub considers her submissive nature to be "intrinsic".   I have to wonder what her definition of
"intrinsic" is.  How is being a natural submissive inconsistent with being pushed
by a demanding Dom? (Never mind whether his demands were realistic or not. Concentrate on the incogruity of her self-definition and the behavior she
objects to in a Dom).    How is it a failure to understand that someone is
"intrinsicly" a submissive to issue an ultimatum as a Dom?



ShreveportMaster -> RE: Definitions (12/16/2006 7:36:54 AM)

 A most excellent idea, and one to which I am looking forward to reading the responses to.



JohnWarren -> RE: Definitions (12/16/2006 7:41:47 AM)

As I have said before, dominance and submission are things of the soul and my eyes aren't good enough to see into one's soul so I simply tend to take people at their word.  However, I can see their actions and by those I decide whom I wish to have in my company.



MaryT -> RE: Definitions (12/16/2006 7:54:40 AM)

Well, maybe the best choice for a new sub would be exploring, not molding.

I think this would be a great dom-to-newbie first instruction: "Read this - beginning to end."

http://www.leathernroses.com/submission/wisemantentipssub.htm

It's Jay Wiseman's "Ten Tips For The Novice, Single, Heterosexual Submissive Woman" [:)]

MaryT



acctonthelook -> RE: Definitions (12/16/2006 8:25:20 AM)

Ditto, I have to respond, being a submissive myself some of the things you comment on are some of my chief complaints when searching for a Master/ Dom.

  1. I always express my preferences Many Dom's don't seem to care.
  2. I have been guilty of saying "anything" an yet when given an example I am immediately reminded that No I would not do "anything". lol
  3. Mind readers, I enjoy communication and prefer someone who actually "listens" instead of running "their" scripts through their head.
  4. Supplying information, Yes you are so correct and the reason I think it happens is because there's not enough Trust built up between two people.  Then again, some people just don't have the communication skill, to even get there.  What can you do but try to find someone willing to talk and leave all the others behind?!?  I make it a hard rule that when getting to know someone, if they cannot communicate What's the Damn Point!  LoL

quote:

ORIGINAL: dittosabrina

Instead of expressing preferences, many women vaguely say that they'd do "anything" for the "right man". 

Unfortunately, the "right man" doesn't actually exist, and they have NO idea
what "anything" really entails.

As for submissives.....so many are looking for a Mind Reader.  That perfect
Dom who will automatically and unerringly just "know" what they need, so they
won't be burdened with the responsiblity of defining things.  These Subs expect to
be treated like the unique people they are, yet they're either incapable of,
or unwilling to, supply the Dom with the information he needs.



dittosabrina -> RE: Definitions (12/16/2006 8:43:17 AM)

Thank you for your response. 

No offense, but this is, again, too vague.  Subs are seeking someone to put their
trust in, yet they withold SO much information!  I'm not even talking about, where do you live, what's your phone number type of safety information.  I'm talking about, what do you weigh, is deep throat off limits for you, do you have any health issues that would interfere with play?

Explain to me, please, as if you were writing a "How To" manual for a Dom
exactly, in detail, HOW you reach this point where there is "enough Trust built up between two people".

Everyone is unique.  Many subs are looking to be taken in hand.  Many are gun shy.  Where is the line between Assertive and Pushy?  Where is the line between
Patient and Wimpy?

With every person, it is different.  If the sub isn't UP FRONT, detailed and explicit about what is an effective and acceptable approach, she really has no business complaining about ANY sort of behavior. 

As for "leaving all the others behind"......wow.   You MUST be female.
Try something some time.  Place an ad as if you were a Male Dominant
seeking a Female submissive.
Wait a week, even a month, and see how much mail you receive.
Box empty?  What a surprise.  Wati a year, it still will be.
Then, try writing to a few women.  Maybe three.  Make the messages
charming, detailed, interesting.  A week later, you will have heard nothing back.
You then realize that it is a numbers game.
In order to hear from ANY women, you must contact ALL of them.
"Leave all the others behind"?  Uh, yeah. Right.

You wrote,

"Supplying information, Yes you are so correct and the reason I think it happens is because there's not enough Trust built up between two people.  Then again, some people just don't have the communication skill, to even get there.  What can you do but try to find someone willing to talk and leave all the others behind?!? "
 
 

 
 



juliaoceania -> RE: Definitions (12/16/2006 8:46:35 AM)

I have very little trouble communicating what I want and need to the right person. It seems as though many expect that there should be some sort of short cut to developing connections because we know whether someone identifies with a bottom type role or a top type role, it is much more complex than that as your post demonstrates. It is rather difficult to connect to anyone, and I do not think that all of the profiles on the internet will  make that process a tiny bit easier than it would be if you met someone in a crowded club or a munch.

I knew what I wanted, I went out and sought it, I believe I have found it, and if it turned out I was looking again I would feel I was that much closer to attaining what I wanted in a LTR. Not all submissives are very hard to understand, but all of us are impossible to understand based on a short profile that does not truly encapsulate who we are as human beings... talking to someone demonstrates who they are over time, and exploring with someone is not a destination for me in discovering every need I have, it is a process to be enjoyed.




dittosabrina -> RE: Definitions (12/16/2006 9:07:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I have very little trouble communicating what I want and need to the right person. It seems as though many expect that there should be some sort of short cut to developing connections because we know whether someone identifies with a bottom type role or a top type role, it is much more complex than that as your post demonstrates. It is rather difficult to connect to anyone, and I do not think that all of the profiles on the internet will  make that process a tiny bit easier than it would be if you met someone in a crowded club or a munch.

I knew what I wanted, I went out and sought it, I believe I have found it, and if it turned out I was looking again I would feel I was that much closer to attaining what I wanted in a LTR. Not all submissives are very hard to understand, but all of us are impossible to understand based on a short profile that does not truly encapsulate who we are as human beings... talking to someone demonstrates who they are over time, and exploring with someone is not a destination for me in discovering every need I have, it is a process to be enjoyed.




I think you may be in the minority of submissive females in that you
went out and looked for what you desired.
I can appreciate that it must be difficult to even admit you ARE submissive,
let alone put up a profile.  Contacting Doms proactively must seem
impossible for many.  But subs could AT LEAST put up some landmarks if they
object to having their toes stepped on (holy mixed metaphor, Batman!)

I think you may have missed my point.  I am all too aware that a profile is
insufficient to completely understand a person.  How much worse, then, when
the Profile isn't even completely filled out?  Take a look at women's profiles on this site in general.  See for yourself how many leave out how much.
(The opposite, of course, is the Cinderella listing attributes of a Dom that would
require the person to be Brad Pitt, Jesus Christ, Houdini, Bill Gates and Superman
all rolled into one, the impossible Prince Charming)

Profiles COULD be better.  The elaborate Soul's Haven preferences checklist demonstrates that you can put a VERY fine focus on certain things.   I just feel that there is an aching need for a profile system that would expose OTHER things.

For example, in the example that began this thread, the Dom presented the sub with a demand that she "trust him completely in the next two days, or else".
Well, we don't know how long they had known each other previous to that point, so we don't necessarily know that this was an unreasonable ultimatum.

What I think we CAN conclude is that her profile (I've seen it) lacked any
definition of the pace at which she was comfortable progressing, or what it
would take to earn her trust.

Women LOVE to bitch that things are done "wrong".  But when presented with the
question, "define the RIGHT way" they have little or nothing to say.  Or they present ideals that they themselves could never live up to.



beticat -> RE: Definitions (12/16/2006 9:44:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dittosabrina

Explain to me, please, as if you were writing a "How To" manual for a Dom
exactly, in detail, HOW you reach this point where there is "enough Trust built up between two people".

Everyone is unique.  Many subs are looking to be taken in hand.  Many are gun shy.  Where is the line between Assertive and Pushy?  Where is the line between Patient and Wimpy?


For me reaching 'trust' is a process that builds. It starts with did they *read* my profile or did they auto-send to all new profiles?  Are they asking questions and *listening* to the answers? This is any sort of question ~ either about hobbies, family, vacations ~ all the way up to detailed sex questions. I won't answer whether I like anal play for example in a first e-mail. By the fourth one, however, I'll have probably answered that as well as detailed the highlights of my past history.
It comes down to communication for me.  If there is communication then the trust builds rapidly.

The difference between patient and wimpy for me is in the actions. If I started dinner sitting next to you and by the second course I'm sitting in your lap ~ the body language is pretty clear and if you then 'ask' if you can kiss me... well, the answer's going to be no and I won't be sitting in your lap anymore.  That's wimpy.  Same circumstances and you lean in and nibble on my neck ~ we might not make the dessert tray. [:)]

The gentleman I'm currently seeing has patient down without being wimpy. Because we are still learning basics about each other, he's leaving it to me to bring up different activities. Whether they're behavioral, sexual or whatever, he's letting me set the pace.  Which is a pretty subtle way of enhancing his domination, as I really am making a concious choice to submit...

Great topic ~ it's one I have been wrestling with for years. I'm still working on it.  Thanks for the directed questions, too!
Cheers,
Cat




bandit25 -> RE: Definitions (12/16/2006 9:51:42 AM)

You want to look at the Dom's profiles?  In my opinion they are even worse!  Some of the simply say...I'm a dominant and have been for years.  Yeah...so?  What does that mean? 

And men like to bitch as much as women do...even more sometimes.  I don't know about other women, but I've ALWAYS liked sex.  Never needed to be cajoled or pressured into it. 

Now maybe I am missing the point and maybe you are simply targeting subs here, but just about everything you've said about subs can be said about Doms as well.



dittosabrina -> RE: Definitions (12/16/2006 10:11:52 AM)

Good point, bandit25 a few Doms are vague.
For various reasons.
Like many men who have played the online-personals game,
I've discovered that the more I say, the more opportunities I give
women to reject.

Interestingly, you cannot safely define things you would like in a woman.
You cannot say "I like blonde, blue-eyed busty women who love Harleys"

Why?  Because every single woman, reading that, hyperfocuses on the aspect
she does NOT match.  Maybe she's blonde, busty, and loves Harleys....but her eyes are BROWN instead of blue.  Immediately, she decides this is a bad match, and moves on.

Why?  Because she can.  Women have that luxury.  The men outnumber them like, I dunno, 10 to 1?

And, most women have NO real idea what their limits are, or what will please them.
Many, I dare say most, LEARN what to like, at the introduction of a man.
So, you cannot mention sex acts you enjoy.  She'll give a girly "Ewwww!"
squeal, reject you......and a year later the guy who kept his mouth shut
will be teaching her how to love being fucked up the ass.




juliaoceania -> RE: Definitions (12/16/2006 10:12:36 AM)

quote:

I think you may be in the minority of submissive females in that you
went out and looked for what you desired.
I can appreciate that it must be difficult to even admit you ARE submissive,
let alone put up a profile.  Contacting Doms proactively must seem
impossible for many.  But subs could AT LEAST put up some landmarks if they
object to having their toes stepped on (holy mixed metaphor, Batman!)


Actually he contacted me based upon my profile, which was very short and to the point. I stated I wanted a permanent long term relationship and I was not poly. I stated I was applying to graduate schools. I stated that I was liberal and was looking for someone intelligent. The conversations we had showed whether or not we were compatible. I had many conversations with many people.

quote:

I think you may have missed my point.  I am all too aware that a profile is
insufficient to completely understand a person.  How much worse, then, when
the Profile isn't even completely filled out?  Take a look at women's profiles on this site in general.  See for yourself how many leave out how much.
(The opposite, of course, is the Cinderella listing attributes of a Dom that would
require the person to be Brad Pitt, Jesus Christ, Houdini, Bill Gates and Superman
all rolled into one, the impossible Prince Charming)


I believe that it is best to be general in a profile, leave the specifics for conversations. If someone's profile does not please you in its incompleteness or because it has a long laundry list, pass it by, they are not for you obviously. Or you could email and ask questions about what they left off or ask for clarification to what they wrote and look for things shared in common and comment on that... or don't

quote:

Profiles COULD be better.  The elaborate Soul's Haven preferences checklist demonstrates that you can put a VERY fine focus on certain things.   I just feel that there is an aching need for a profile system that would expose OTHER things.



Take what you need and leave the rest, and to be honest I did not use the preference lists for kinks, that is my personal business and I did not necessarily want a dom to know every fantasy I have before we shared even an email. I think that expecting others to take their time filling out something to make your life easier as someone looking is possibly not very realistic... we all have our reasons for being here, and they are not all the same.

quote:

For example, in the example that began this thread, the Dom presented the sub with a demand that she "trust him completely in the next two days, or else".
Well, we don't know how long they had known each other previous to that point, so we don't necessarily know that this was an unreasonable ultimatum.

What I think we CAN conclude is that her profile (I've seen it) lacked any
definition of the pace at which she was comfortable progressing, or what it
would take to earn her trust.

Women LOVE to bitch that things are done "wrong".  But when presented with the
question, "define the RIGHT way" they have little or nothing to say.  Or they present ideals that they themselves could never live up to.


Ask the submissive that posted these things what she meant by it, if she can't answer, move on to another that is more compatible with you... it is all compatibility, worrying about how others write their profiles or how they approach the world is an exercise in futility in my opinion. I take people at face value personally, and go from there, if they do not know what they want I do not waste my time trying to figure it out.

Weeding, kissing frogs, trying to find a needle in a haystack is frustrating at times, but once you weeded one person out that is one less you have to weed out... the glass is half full after all.



dittosabrina -> RE: Definitions (12/16/2006 10:15:32 AM)

Thank you for your thoughtful response, beticat.

You wrote,

It starts with did they *read* my profile or did they auto-send to all new profiles?

Could you explain in what way that affects your trust?

You DO realize that it is a nearly-hopeless numbers game online for men,
don't you?  Perfectly decent men have realized that in order to get a
response out of ANY woman at all, they have to contact pretty much ALL of them?  Faced with that task, would you pen something personalized to each one, or would you send out a generic message?



juliaoceania -> RE: Definitions (12/16/2006 10:21:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dittosabrina

Thank you for your thoughtful response, beticat.

You wrote,

It starts with did they *read* my profile or did they auto-send to all new profiles?

Could you explain in what way that affects your trust?

You DO realize that it is a nearly-hopeless numbers game online for men,
don't you?  Perfectly decent men have realized that in order to get a
response out of ANY woman at all, they have to contact pretty much ALL of them?  Faced with that task, would you pen something personalized to each one, or would you send out a generic message?


I would not contact just anyone hoping that some naive female would respond. Canned emails are a big turn off, if they cannot spend the time to pen an original email to me I would not spend any time at all responding back. I do hope you know that the women who respond to these emails not realizing they are canned probably are not the sharpest knives in the drawer... if intellect and pride is not important to you in a submissive then that is possibly a great strategy.



dittosabrina -> RE: Definitions (12/16/2006 10:26:31 AM)

Thank you for another thoughtful response, juliaoceania.
You wrote, "you could email and ask questions about what they left off or ask for clarification to what they wrote and look for things shared in common and comment on that... or don't"
I've attempted that, with two persons.  So far, the women have turned out
to seem as if they are borderline basket cases.  See my other thread for details.
You wrote, "I did not necessarily want a dom to know every fantasy I have before we shared even an email."    Why, exactly?  What harm could come from being up-front?  What good could come from not being up-front?  Hiding things wastes time and energy, as I see it.
You wrote, "I think that expecting others to take their time filling out something to make your life easier as someone looking is possibly not very realistic... "
Perhaps you misunderstood.  I do not "expect" others to do anything at all, let alone fill out a form.

I was trying to point out that, in my experience, subs tend to complain bitterly that Doms do not understand them.......while being MUCH less than honest and up-front in their initial profiles (or being wildly unrealistic in their profiles) and failing to do anything to let a Dom know what he needs to know.

The woman in my example needed someone she would consider "patient".  Did she ever take the trouble to define what that means?    I mean, how about a clue or two?  It would kill women to say things like,  "I don't kiss on the first date"?  Or,  "I'd have to know where you live and work before I give you MY home address"?



Arpig -> RE: Definitions (12/16/2006 10:33:51 AM)

Oddly enough, I am anything but a perfectly decent man, and I get many responses from my emails. The contacts never go anywhere, because I am not as a rule interested in taking it anywhwere (therefore I never find out if the woman I am corresponding with has any desire to take it anywhere either).
Seems to me that the men who do mass mailings are looking to find  woman, any woman, as opposed to trying to find a woman they actually want to talk to in the morning



dittosabrina -> RE: Definitions (12/16/2006 10:35:02 AM)

Thank you, juliaoceania.

You have the immense luxury of being an attractive female.

I invite you to place an ad as if you were a man.
Then, examine a few women's profiles.
Take the time to compose thoughtful, personalized messages to a few.
See what results you get.  It will be zero. 
Double the number or carefully-personalized messages. You will
get ONE response. Double it again.  Maybe you'll now be talking with three people.

Remember that the ultimate aim is affection, sex and kinky play. Not
a wife or some kind of spiritual-guru-soul-mate.  Practical results. If men wanted someone who "understood" them, all they'd have to do is go down to the local bar, and shoot darts and drink brew with their male buddies.  Sex is what distingishes sex, if you know what I mean.

You'll discover that women will chatter with you forever......but going somewhere with it is pretty much impossible.  A black hole of time and energy.

Then, create another ad as if you were a man. Send out a friendly message to ALL the women.  See where that gets you.



juliaoceania -> RE: Definitions (12/16/2006 10:48:42 AM)

quote:

I've attempted that, with two persons.  So far, the women have turned out
to seem as if they are borderline basket cases. 


I read the other thread, and to be frank, she did not strike me as someone looking for anything at all, nor did she strike me as a basketcase. Sometimes when we are hurt it takes us a while to get our bearings and figure out where we would like to go, normal in my book. If someone emailed me the things that you email her I would not respond.. it was rather like the third degree.

quote:

You wrote, "I did not necessarily want a dom to know every fantasy I have before we shared even an email."    Why, exactly?  What harm could come from being up-front?  What good could come from not being up-front?  Hiding things wastes time and energy, as I see it.


I would share certain things such as I am a masochist.. I would expect them to share fetishes rather quickly if crucial in a relationship, limits are something I would discuss right away, but to be honest I see my deepest fantasies as something worth waiting to hear about, and they are special to me, why cast pearls before swine?

quote:

I was trying to point out that, in my experience, subs tend to complain bitterly that Doms do not understand them.......while being MUCH less than honest and up-front in their initial profiles (or being wildly unrealistic in their profiles) and failing to do anything to let a Dom know what he needs to know.




The example you pointed out in the other thread I believe the sub had very little listed in her profile... exactly how is this contradictory and dishonest? And even if it were people are dishonest, people are contradiuctory.. not females, not submissives, not switches, not Goreans..... people in general can be this way.

quote:

The woman in my example needed someone she would consider "patient".  Did she ever take the trouble to define what that means?    I mean, how about a clue or two?  It would kill women to say things like,  "I don't kiss on the first date"?  Or,  "I'd have to know where you live and work before I give you MY home address"?


How about this, if someone expected that level of specificness from me before I met them, they would not get a date for coffee, much less a kiss.

Many women are looking for more than a list of kinks and trying to pinpoint when exactly we might get to fuck you, it is not high on our priority list perhaps like it is for you. Some people think they may make a friend even if they do not have a lover if the conversations lead no where. It is these type of people that have the most success because life is a process and not a goal for them... and they enjoy that process. I find men that are process oriented to be extremely good relationship material.



beticat -> RE: Definitions (12/16/2006 11:19:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dittosabrina

Thank you for your thoughtful response, beticat.

You wrote,

It starts with did they *read* my profile or did they auto-send to all new profiles?

Could you explain in what way that affects your trust?

Well, if my profile says 'I work most weekends' and their response is 'I like this, that and the other. I really like weekend getaways to Napa'  It doesn't matter how cool, compatible, wonderful they are ~ there isn't going to be a chance to start building trust because my availability and theirs don't match.  The other thing this indicates to me is that they aren't really interested in *me*. I am fairly sensitive (possibly over-sensitive) to indicators that a potential partner is focused on what they want to the exclusion of even realizing that I have wants or needs. I've had too many relationships that were emotionally neglectful to want to be there again. I'm also not expecting that the initial e-mail be a novel. Could be as easy as "Your profile caught my eye. I'd be interested in speaking to you more." Then when I send a response, they're ahead of the game and they'd better have a good follow up.  Does this help?

quote:


You DO realize that it is a nearly-hopeless numbers game online for men,
don't you?  Perfectly decent men have realized that in order to get a
response out of ANY woman at all, they have to contact pretty much ALL of them?  Faced with that task, would you pen something personalized to each one, or would you send out a generic message?


I do know that it's pretty overwhelming for the guys. I certainly don't have to view profiles, I can wait to be contacted! I guess there isn't a good answer ~ I personally respond to all e-mails I receive. If they have sent a generic e-mail that looks to be not up my alley but on reading their profile, they have taken the time to talk about what they like and what they're looking for, I will respond.  I have found that most of the guys who have contacted me with a 'form e-mail' also have very little info in their profile.

And if I'm meeting someone face-to-face as an initial contact ~ most of this doesn't apply. I have a gut level reaction to whether I'm comfortable or not.  The problem with the written word is that I have to have some kind of filter otherwise I'd be overwhelmed. I have probably declined contact with some very wonderful men. Again, there doesn't seem to be anyway around that.

Cheers,
Cat



juliaoceania -> RE: Definitions (12/16/2006 11:34:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dittosabrina

Thank you, juliaoceania.

You have the immense luxury of being an attractive female.

I invite you to place an ad as if you were a man.
Then, examine a few women's profiles.
Take the time to compose thoughtful, personalized messages to a few.
See what results you get.  It will be zero. 
Double the number or carefully-personalized messages. You will
get ONE response. Double it again.  Maybe you'll now be talking with three people.

Remember that the ultimate aim is affection, sex and kinky play. Not
a wife or some kind of spiritual-guru-soul-mate.  Practical results. If men wanted someone who "understood" them, all they'd have to do is go down to the local bar, and shoot darts and drink brew with their male buddies.  Sex is what distingishes sex, if you know what I mean.

You'll discover that women will chatter with you forever......but going somewhere with it is pretty much impossible.  A black hole of time and energy.

Then, create another ad as if you were a man. Send out a friendly message to ALL the women.  See where that gets you.


There is a difference in sending out a friendly message to all the women and sending a canned message to all the women. There are ways to start a conversation that are short, to the point, and do not spend vast amounts of time to compose... example, my Daddy wrote me an email that was a few lines...asked me what I was going to study in grad school and he talked about what he studied... it only took two minutes and it was successful.

I like what Arpig wrote, send a message to people that truly merit one instead of chumming for any old body willing to answer.. which would you rather do?



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.09375