Dear Doms, Yes You!

[Phoenyx]

21 hours ago, CopperKnob said:

Or, i'm just a funny MF'r! 🤷‍♀️😂😂😂
Trust me, there isn't a liitle bit of me that is Domme and never will be, I'm certainly not 'stuck'

No offense intended.  I just see in you, a place where I once was.  Perhaps, "stuck" was a poor choice of words.  Still, you should never say "never".

If it helps and feels more comfortable, we can use my own experiences as an example.  In my early days, I never thought of myself as a "Dom".  The personas and archetypes that I saw, just weren't "me".  Yet, I failed miserably as a sub.   I used humor to keep everyone at arms-length.  I told myself, that I was merely "defending my boundaries".  Yet, my greatest reactions of humor and sarcasm seemed to come when someone actually did touch that sensitive spot, deep within.  I couldn't just relax an let it happen.  Something was driving me.

Eventually, I found a mentor, who helped me to discover that I had been born with a dominant nature.  My humor and sarcasm came from my nature trying to assert itself.  Of course, I rejected this idea, at first.  I even used sarcasm to drive the thought from my head.  But, the more that I relaxed and allowed myself to just be myself, the more the "Dom" emerged.  It was never what I wanted---or, what I thought that I had wanted.  To this day, I still see myself as "The Reluctant Dom".  I sometimes feel that I was "drafted".  Nevertheless, I am happy with the outcome, as I found my comfortable place within The Scene.  Finally releasing that part of me, helped me to find inner peace.

There are those in The Scene (and Life) that are "Natural Dom/mes".  Such traits are rare and special, as they are intrinsic, rather than ego-driven.  However, we live in a society that ***s us to repress such traits (unless we happen to be born into The Elite).  From a very early age, we are browbeaten into believing that such traits are bad, and that we are "irresponsible" if we are not good little cogs in society's machine.

You have implied that you don't have "Domme" traits---or maybe, that you just don't want them.  I would say that your humor and ability to express your thoughts clearly and in-detail fall into that category.  Still, there are some other questions that you may wish to ask yourself:

Do you enjoy teaching, or sharing your favorite skills with others?  Are you more into sharing your abilities, than competition?  A true Dom/me is not concerned with "competing", as they feel that their abilities can stand on their own.

Are you creative?  Do you wish your works to be original and unique?  Does "following the crowd" feel more like "following the herd".  Do too many aspects of modern society make you feel like you are being herded?  Does this anger you?

Do you find the crush of humanity in big cities to be suffocating?  Do you find certain jobs (particularly corporate jobs) to be suffocating?

How decisive are you in your day-to-day routine?

Do you have problems with temper?  Do you feel emotional pressure building within, until some little, minor thing seems to set it off?  Does this happen all-too-often?  Have you ever berated yourself, for not being able to get control of this?  This could be a sign that your dominant nature is being blocked.  It is trying to express itself, but has no outlet.

Of course, everyone experiences these things at one time or another.  The question is really about how intense or frequent these feelings tend to be.  Are they an overwhelming *** in your life?

Anyway, I hope that I didn't get too personal.  You can tell me to stop, and I will leave it alone.  No, I am not trying to push you into anything.  I just saw something in you, that reminded me too-much of myself.

[Phoenyx]

@CopperKnob, perhaps I could suggest a simpler idea.  For the moment, completely forget about the labels of "sub" and "Domme".  Just relax and be yourself.  Continue to openly express your thoughts, make friends, and gain confidants.  Let your best traits express themselves freely.  Your path will eventually present itself.  But, be prepared!---the path may not be the one that you were expecting.

Oh, and be sure to ignore the trolls.  They are not worthy of a response.

[CopperKnob]

Hi @phoenyx
I'm really comfortable with how I identify/my identity within the lifestyle. That said, I'm not opposed to evolving as an individual, thats a natural process throughout life.
However, I am very clear with myself as an individual who has knows herself very well that I am not Dominant within relationships
Thank you for your thoughts but I think thats enough now

[StickyTrickster]

2 hours ago, CopperKnob said:

Hi @phoenyx
I'm really comfortable with how I identify/my identity within the lifestyle. That said, I'm not opposed to evolving as an individual, thats a natural process throughout life.
However, I am very clear with myself as an individual who has knows herself very well that I am not Dominant within relationships
Thank you for your thoughts but I think thats enough now

I’m glad that you are comfortable and happy with your kink identity, I do not wish to challenge that, as I’ve always said brats are awesome and will always defend them from the usual stigma.

Just have to challenge the inference here that exploring dominant roles for play also necessitates being dominant within a relationship.  Unless we say all switches have multiple personality disorder when it comes to relationships it would imply switch-erasure as dominance and/or submissiveness is only ever true if it also extends completely to the relationship.  Indeed, it also excludes those that make BDSM play secondary to a vanilla relationship.

Whilst I’m absolutely sure that wasn’t your intent and were just meaning to restate your submissive identity (all power to you) as I mentioned previously, believe more submissives should seek to be strong and independent.  Despite my being sure it was unintended, just wanted to clarify and set the case for switches, just as I would for brats, for any statement that a reader could misconstrue in a disfavourable way before they might indeed do that.  No matter how much I might enjoy the author’s writing.  I hope this won’t be misconstrued as looking for a conflict, keeping you from your bratting ways is the last thing I’d want please go forth and brat to your heart’s content, but merely to clarify something that others could misconstrue into reinforcing other stigma.

[CopperKnob]

@stickytrickster i think you're reading far too much in that comment which was clearly about how I identify, no one else. It also wasn't about being a brat or bratting.
Whilst i'm happy for anything i write/post to open up discussion, I'm not particulary happy about those that I don't know, have never conversed with making comment about my own identity or to seemingly attempt to persuade me that I'm something I'm not or I know nothing about myself
I've not commented on switches here or elsewhere, primarily because I write from experience/imagination, I'm not a switch and i have no idea about that role.
Thank you

[StickyTrickster]

@CopperKnob As I stressed I didn't for one moment think it was intended, nor was I accusing you of anything, nor would I wish to try persuade anyone to be anyone other than who they feel they are or want to be - my own attitude is that people should be free to explore their identity and kink on their own terms but that if they would like help exploring anything I am happy to assist them but even then I believe their journey of discovery should be led by the person themselves.  I can totally understand the frustration when people attempt to tell you should be this or that.  I've had it happen to me many times myself.  And I'm aware your previous point wasn't about brats - I raised it as I have previously spoken in depth of my love of Brats which along with being ***ed by the stigma directed at them motivates me to defend them and that I hoped knowing that it would be understandable why I also feel compelled to point out when something else could potentially misconstrued against switches that can also be stigmatised in different ways.

All I was intending with my last comment was to point out that the implication that exploring one thing for play purposes means it must extend to the relationship as well as its associate inverse preposition that if you are one thing in a relationship a person shouldn't explore anything counter to that for the purpose of play is itself a notion that when made should be challenged (whether that point was made accidentally or not) to ensure it doesn't propagate as not only is it harmful to switches, it is harmful to the notion of people being able to freely explore any aspect of themselves that they may wish to do without constraint.  As this is a public forum in which that point can be misconstrued by others - this is after all the internet where 100 different people can read 100 different interpretations of the same thing and take anything out of context - my only desire was to limit the potential damage such notion could have done.

I'm sorry if anything I said caused any hurt or offense, it was not in intended and I would be saddened if any was caused.  I do not wish to seek any conflict but I wouldn't be living with integrity if I didn't seek to clarify something I thought might be harmful to anyone.  Whilst I've enjoyed our interactions with the Brat Grimoire and enjoy reading your postings immensely and agree wholeheartedly with the vast majority of them I am happy to skip and ignore all future postings if this slight disagreement has in anyway caused discomfort.  

[Phoenyx]

20 hours ago, CopperKnob said:

Thank you for your thoughts but I think thats enough now

No problem.  However, you may wish to more clearly state what it is that you are seeking.  I have enjoyed your satire immensely, with its humorous observations of The Scene.  But, your overall message is somehow getting lost.

[Leisa]

6 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

No problem.  However, you may wish to more clearly state what it is that you are seeking.  I have enjoyed your satire immensely, with its humorous observations of The Scene.  But, your overall message is somehow getting lost.

I’d respectfully disagree. I think her target audience is absolutely getting the message as intended. She’s not actively giving advice. She’s sharing her experiences through humorous writings and brats everywhere are waiting for the next installment as intelligent Dom(mes) are sighing knowing that their brat is getting ideas from a brilliant mind.

[CopperKnob]

23 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

No problem.  However, you may wish to more clearly state what it is that you are seeking.  I have enjoyed your satire immensely, with its humorous observations of The Scene.  But, your overall message is somehow getting lost.

@phoenyx
If you've somehow misplaced the message within this post, let me be very clear for it is, and I'll try to be succint. Do not message s types telling them that they're not submissive/not submissive enough, that they're too fiesty to be a submissive. If thats your thinking as a D type, its time for some self reflection.
For most s types, submission is present only when there is enough connection for there to be a dynamic. It's not something that is thrown about, to all and sundry, willy nilly.
My message to you specifically is, do not suggest to me that I am something I am not, especially when you and I have never held a conversation. I have a better handle on who I am than you who knows nothing about me
Lastly, when I've said enough is enough, respect it. I was clear in my boundaries and you've stomped all over them, a clear red flag in the world of kink.
Now stop.

[Phoenyx]

9 minutes ago, Leisa said:

I’d respectfully disagree. I think her target audience is absolutely getting the message as intended. She’s not actively giving advice. She’s sharing her experiences through humorous writings and brats everywhere are waiting for the next installment as intelligent Dom(mes) are sighing knowing that their brat is getting ideas from a brilliant mind.

Which brings-up the very problem that I suspected.  The serious statements are getting lost in the sarcasm.  There is no dividing-line between where the satire ends, and the serious begins.  In face-to-face, of course, I would have not trouble telling the difference.  However, this text-only format is very limiting.  Perhaps, I'm just not part of that "target audience", or, I have the wrong idea of who that "target" should be.

[CopperKnob]

4 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

Which brings-up the very problem that I suspected.  The serious statements are getting lost in the sarcasm.  There is no dividing-line between where the satire ends, and the serious begins.  In face-to-face, of course, I would have not trouble telling the difference.  However, this text-only format is very limiting.  Perhaps, I'm just not part of that "target audience", or, I have the wrong idea of who that "target" should be.

If I were you, I'd skip the online bit, it's clearly not working for you. Maybe try the BDSM textbook written in 1678 and leave the people who do kink their way to it?

[Deleted Member]

Oh dear, what's happened here? It was a very funny piece with a point beneath it that was very clear. Am brat, I got the point entirely, and as such I identified with it and enjoyed it.

Then came the mansplaining...

[CopperKnob]

A 'Twue Master' showed up and felt the need to bring everyone having fun back to the 'seriousness' of kink 🙄

[Phoenyx]

No need to bite my head off!  I was merely offering advice from the goodness of my heart.  I was drawing on my own experiences.  If it's wrong, it's wrong---no one is perfect.  Personal attacks are totally unnecessary.

Perhaps, in all seriousness, you could write a piece, describing your ideal relationship.  Right now, to me (and apparently a few others) your messages seem jumbled and confusing.  If this truly is a new form of kink (as suggested) help to bring everyone up to speed.  But, don't belittle, just because someone has yet to be exposed to it, or gets the wrong message.  You say that you want something.  Yet, you do not clearly state what that "something" is.  Or, is that the game---to guess the "something"?  (that last question was serious, and not meant to be sarcastic in any way)

[CopperKnob]

24 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

No need to bite my head off!  I was merely offering advice from the goodness of my heart.  I was drawing on my own experiences.  If it's wrong, it's wrong---no one is perfect.  Personal attacks are totally unnecessary.

Perhaps, in all seriousness, you could write a piece, describing your ideal relationship.  Right now, to me (and apparently a few others) your messages seem jumbled and confusing.  If this truly is a new form of kink (as suggested) help to bring everyone up to speed.  But, don't belittle, just because someone has yet to be exposed to it, or gets the wrong message.  You say that you want something.  Yet, you do not clearly state what that "something" is.  Or, is that the game---to guess the "something"?  (that last question was serious, and not meant to be sarcastic in any way)

It was 'advice' you were asked not to give and yet you continued having no mind for my wishes/boundaries. If you make it personal, I shall respond in kind.
If you're confused by something, ask, don't make a judgement/statement. Your experience is not mine.
If my writings make no sense, to you, if you're not seeing the 'message' I apologise, but it's not something I'll spend a lot of my time thinking about, like I say, my experiences, nothing more.
At no point in this writing have I commented that I 'want something'
My profile offers an overview of what I'm looking for. My writings do not. As said countless times on my many writings, they are of my experience and that alone.
To post a writing about what I'm looking for on Fet would be to write a 'kinky ad' and frankly, on this site, I couldn't think of doing anything worse.
So again, thank you for your 'advice' but I think you've given enough now

[Leisa]

1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

Which brings-up the very problem that I suspected.  The serious statements are getting lost in the sarcasm.  There is no dividing-line between where the satire ends, and the serious begins.  In face-to-face, of course, I would have not trouble telling the difference.  However, this text-only format is very limiting.  Perhaps, I'm just not part of that "target audience", or, I have the wrong idea of who that "target" should be.

I think the problem is of your own making 🤷🏼‍♀️. You don’t want the information passed on to your s type then keep her off here. I. All the writings there inky seem to be a couple of the D types that have an issue and normally it’s those without an s type to begin with. Maybe do some self reflection to see if maybe her words have not hit too close to home.

[CopperKnob]

3 minutes ago, Leisa said:

I think the problem is of your own making 🤷🏼‍♀️. You don’t want the information passed on to your s type then keep her off here. I. All the writings there inky seem to be a couple of the D types that have an issue and normally it’s those without an s type to begin with. Maybe do some self reflection to see if maybe her words have not hit too close to home.

Which was the whole point about this particular writing in the first place 😤

[Leisa]

47 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

Which was the whole point about this particular writing in the first place 😤

I know. Of course I’m just a brat so what do I know 🤷🏼‍♀️

[StickyTrickster]

1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

Right now, to me (and apparently a few others) your messages seem jumbled and confusing.  If this truly is a new form of kink (as suggested) help to bring everyone up to speed.  But, don't belittle, just because someone has yet to be exposed to it, or gets the wrong message.  You say that you want something.  Yet, you do not clearly state what that "something" is.  Or, is that the game---to guess the "something"?  (that last question was serious, and not meant to be sarcastic in any way)

I hope you're not trying to bring me into this by implication with that "few others" comment.

It is clearly stated throughout CopperKnob's original piece the thesis on which she ended the piece, "But, I assure you, it’s entirely possible to be both strong and submissive."

The piece itself is a clear satire of dominant types telling people they shouldn't be a submissive for having a strong personality - a point which you outright dismissively question with the first line of the first post you've made in this thread with, "Such an irony.  Submissives are supposed to be _____ and _____?  Really?!"

To loosely riff off the phrase "the best teachers are the ones that tell you where to look but not tell you what to see," there is a massive gulf between asking questions that allow people to find an answer that is true for them and actively telling someone what they believe about themselves is wrong and they should instead be something else.

Of course submissives can be strong and independent - asserting that they must always be a sign they should instead be a dominant is nonsense.  I mean even the vanilla world believes in the stereotype of a male CEO type with a dominant personality seeking BDSM to be submissive - if they can accept that then the inability to accept strong and independent women can also wish to be submissive within BDSM is arguably sexist.

The earlier comments I raised have nothing to do with trying to tell someone they were wrong about the identity they have chosen and indeed my concerns about whether certain comments might constitute switch-erasure or imply people can't explore types of play different than what they seek in a relationship because those concerns apply even more so your own implication that having a strong and independent personality means a person must be dominant a thesis you persisted to put forward.  I haven't addressed them until now as by continuing to question the OP's choice of identity you seemed to be on collision course for a showdown and it wasn't my place to interfere in the OP's choice on how they chose to respond to it.  I only fight other people's battles either when they invite me to or when nobody else seems to be around to make their case for them.  But if you're inviting me by implication that would be a mistake as my earlier criticisms apply even more so to your writings and you will not be finding any support for your position from me so don't try to invoke it to strengthen your position.

Having clarified my position on that invocation I have nothing further to say on the matter and am moving on to other things.  My suggestion would be to drop the defensiveness, apologise for implying someone was wrong for choosing the identity they have and just move on.  Further defensiveness and arguing is just digging a bigger grave for oneself.

[Glasgowdom1991]

Part of this is people don't realise the sub is the one is is actually in charge as they have the safe word or gesture and can stop everything

[CopperKnob]

5 hours ago, Glasgowguy1991 said:

Part of this is people don't realise the sub is the one is is actually in charge as they have the safe word or gesture and can stop everything

The sub doesn't hold all the power, without dominance there is no submission and vice versa, its an exchange

[Glasgowdom1991]

But the sub can stop everything with 1 word they hold ultimate power as they can stop at any moment

[Leisa]

14 minutes ago, Glasgowguy1991 said:

But the sub can stop everything with 1 word they hold ultimate power as they can stop at any moment

If that’s your thinking then you don’t get it. It’s a TPE in that moment. The only time a play is stopped is when boundaries have been crossed and there is no longer any option.

[CopperKnob]

33 minutes ago, Glasgowguy1991 said:

But the sub can stop everything with 1 word they hold ultimate power as they can stop at any moment

The Dom can't stop anything? The Dom has absolutely no power/control/autonomy? If that's so, that's a dangerous Dom/dynamic right there

[ey****]

2 hours ago, Glasgowguy1991 said:

But the sub can stop everything with 1 word they hold ultimate power as they can stop at any moment

The Dominant can end the scene at any time without even saying a word.